The Instigator
triangle.128k
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
NewLifeChristian
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Evolution vs Young Earth Creationism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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 4 votes the winner is...
triangle.128k
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/2/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,319 times Debate No: 78339
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (178)
Votes (4)

 

triangle.128k

Pro

This debate is reserved for NewLifeChristian. I will be arguing that Evolution is true and that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. NewLifeChristian will be arguing for Creation being true and that the Earth is around 6-10K years old.


Rules
No trolling
Reliable sources must be used


Structure
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments only (no rebuttals)
Rounds 3-4: Everything else
Round 5: Everything and explain why we did better than our opponent


Definitions

Young Earth Creation: A literal interpretation of genesis that the Earth and heavens were created in 7 days by God, combined with the belief of the Earth being 6-10K years old.

Evolution: Darwin's theory of organisms changing overtime through proccesses such as mutations or Natural selection



NewLifeChristian

Con

I accept. Good luck to Pro. Let's get started!
Debate Round No. 1
triangle.128k

Pro

Transitionary Fossils

One evidence of Evolution is transitionary fossils/skeletons found. [1] We can see proof of organisms changing over time by looking at transitionary fossils.

[Figure 1.4.4: Hominid skulls]

Here, we can see that skull A (Pan troglodytes) is one of the earliest human primates, and the skull is around 2.7 million years old. Skull N represents modern-day humans. The fossils are arranged in near chronological order, skull B (Australopithecus africanus) is around 2.6 million years old. Skull D (Homo habilis) is around 1.9 million years old. Skull I (Homo heidelbergensis) is around 300,000 years old and etc. We can easily see that the skulls smoothly transition, which proves Darwin's theory that organisms change over time to what they are now.

According to creation theory, all organisms were created in the beggining and they didn't change much over time. If this was true, how could you explain why fossils of old primates don't exist anymore? From a creationist viewpoint, I could only imagine that the primates were killed during the flood. However, why is it that there were transitionary species? Further more, you don't need scientific dating methods to see the differences between the fossils. We can clearly see that the earlier fossils look older and less complete (hence the filled with blue spaces.) The newer fossils look smoother and more uniform. If dating methods were innacurate, why would the dating methods show that the skulls with lower cranial capacity were older? How is it also possible for change like this to happen in such little time?

Human primates are not the only example of this either. We can see evolutionary change with old fish skeletons/fossils.



This is an example of a fish that existed 380 million years ago, the panderichthys. We can clearly see it sort of looks like a reptile. It is likely one of the ancestors of modern-day reptiles. If creation was true, how could you explain the transitionary fossils? If this was a result of inbreeding, how could a fish reproduce with a reptile? [2]


2. Millions of years

There are many dating methods including radiometric dating. One example is carbon dating. Carbon 14 (C14) isn't very stable and has a 'half-life' of around 5730 years. Carbon 14 comes from Nitrogen 14 in the upper atmosphere which is converted to C14 through cosmic rays. [3+5]

Carbon 14 decay rate

This chart shows how we can use the half-life of C14 to calculate the age. Carbon 14 decays into Nitrogen 14 (N14), scientists can carefully examine the ratio of C14 to N14 to calculate the age. For example, a fossil with around 25% C14 and 75% N14 would be around 11.4K years old as evident by the chart.

Carbon dating would be inefficient for fossils as old as millions of years, or very young rocks ranging from a few hundred years. For calculating the ages of older rocks, we can use other elements with longer or shorter half-lives. [4]


For example, the 'parent' and 'daughter' elements Uranium-235 and Lead-207 can be used to date rocks that are a few billions of years old due to the long half-life. From Uranium and Lead, one of the oldest rocks we found with that was 4.4 billion years old. [6]

If there are rocks this old, it's certain that the minimum age of Earth must be around 4.4 billion years. The Young Earth theory implies that the Earth is only 6000 years old. This would make absolutely no sense considering that there are rocks older than the "age of the Earth." The burden of proof is on New Life Christian to disprove radiometric dating, and give clear evidence of the Earth being 6000 years old rather than 4.5 billion. Scientists use radiometric dating all the time, it would be ridiculous to say it's inefficient. Scientists have proven it's efficiency and radiometric dating is commonly used.

Just as another example, a norway spruce found in Sweden was calculated to be around 9550 years old, older than the "age of the Earth." [7]

World's oldest tree picture



Organisms arranged in chronological order

Young Earth Creation insists that the fossils were thrown around by a worldwide flood.

Geologic Column Diagram
http://www.prehistoricplanet.com...


Fossils and bones are however arranged in chronological order. The older species are deeper down and the younger ones are higher up. Could this be a pure coincidence?


Continental Drift



All the continents perfectly fit together which is one indicator that the Earth used to have one large landmass and one large ocean. Land doesn't drift much faster than 10 centimeters per year. [14] If the Earth has exissted for 6000 years, how could the continents drift so quickly away from each other?


Natural Selection

A process of Darwin's theory of Evolution includes natural selection, or 'survival of the fittest.' [8] Natural Selection is simply the organisms more 'fit' for their enviornment surviving, while the others die out. To better explain it, I will use a picture.

We can imagine that organisms would appear in a cold enviornment, each colored dot represents a different species. The 'cooler' colored dots represent species better fit for cold enviornments. The species with 'warmer' colored dots represent species better fit for warmer enviornments.



The species meant for warmer enviornments would die out, and the better fit ones would thrive leading to the population looking like this:



We can see now there are more green, purple and blue ones while the less fit organisms died out.






As time would pass, the population of the less fit organisms would die out, and the more fit organisms would increase in population percentage. We can see that the purple organisms in the beggining were the most fit, thus leading to them dominating the cold enviornment.

An example of natural selection in reality would be Homo Sapiens (modern-day humans) and Neanderthals. The Neanderthals and Homo Sapeins lived at the same time around a hundred thousand years ago [9+10]. However, the Neanderthals declined in population and are no longer in existance. Homo Sapiens on the other hand still lived to this day (duh). This would be an example of natural selection, the homo sapiens had a better brain and their brains were more social as well. Thus making communication easier than the Neanderthals, a lot of the Neanderthal brain was dedicated to vision and not other important aspects. Neanderthal skulls have been found and proven to exist.

Another example of Natural Selection would be the Dinosaurs. [11] The Dinosaurs had died out ever since a comet or asteroid struck the Earth. Mammals on the other hand were more fit for the enviornment, and they could survive the extinction and thrive while the dinosaurs died out.

If creation were true, how could there be species that went extinct, while others still survived to this day?


Size of Noah's Ark

Noah's Ark was built around 6000 years ago according to young earth creationism. The amount of modern species in existance today is around 8 million (possibly more if you take the bacteria and micro organisms into consideration) Since there were two of every animal on Noah's ark, that would mean Noah's Ark would need to harbor 16 million different species. The Titanic was the world's largest ship built in the early 20th century, and technology back then was likely much lower than modern-day technology. So Noah's Ark was likely smaller than the Titanic. So how could Noah's Ark possibly fit 16 million different species while having them survive and be cared for? If it was lower than 16 million, how could we get to 16 million species today in just 6000 years without Evolution? We have never witnessed any species being created by god.


Starlight



A light year is the distance in which light travels in a year. There are plenty of stars and galaxies found which are past 6000 light years. Further more, our galaxy alone is 100,000 light years wide. If the Earth was 6000 years old, we couldn't tell how big our galaxy was, nor could we see other galaxies. Light can't travel faster than a light-year in a year. This alone disproves the young-earth theory. [14]




1. http://www.talkorigins.org...
2. http://www.devoniantimes.org...
3. http://www.physlink.com...
4. http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov...;
5. http://scienceline.ucsb.edu...;
6. http://www.livescience.com...;
7. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
8. http://www.indiana.edu...
9. http://humanorigins.si.edu...
10. http://www.pbs.org...
11. http://www.livescience.com...
12. http://www.nytimes.com...
13. http://hubpages.com...
14. http://www.ibri.org...;

NewLifeChristian

Con

Catastrophic Events

On March 19, 1982 a minor eruption near the summit of Mount St. Helens caused a large mudflow that created a canyon in just nine hours. [1][2] This canyon, dubbed the "Little Grand Canyon", goes to show how catastrophic events can form major natural structures rapidly.


The "Little Grand Canyon" located
near Mount St. Helens.

Imagine the impact of a much larger catastrophe, such as the Great Flood of Noah. A catastrophe as large as that could have caused Pangaea to split into multiple continents quickly. In fact, there is evidence supporting the Great Flood including the fact that "the majority of our planet's sedimentary rock appears to have accumulated rapidly by means of a worldwide flood". [3] On top of this, fossils themselves are evidence for a catastrophe such as a flood that take place in the past. [4] Even more interesting is that scientists have found whale fossils in deserts. [5] This is obvious evidence of a global flood that would have enabled whales to swim through areas that are now deserts.

The Bible's Accuracy In Historical Documentation

The Bible's account of history is very accurate. The Hanging Gardens of Babylon which appeared in the Bible and was doubted by many, actually did exist. [6]

Image result for the hanging gardens of babylon
The Hanging Gardens of Babylon pictured above.

In fact, the Bible is so accurate that it brought two famous secular 20th-century archaeologists, being William F. Albright and Nelson Glueck, to praising the Bible as the "single most accurate source document from history". [7] Evidence for the Bible's historical accuracy continues. The supposedly mythical Hittites people mentioned in the Bible, whose existence was denied by many, was actually proven to be true despite much denial of the people's existence. [8]

DNA Supports Creation

Despite the secular community's claim that humans genomes are 98% similar to chimp genomes in reality, when we look at all the DNA, it only adds up to 70% which is a significant difference from before. [9] The reason the number still seems high is that humans actually share various traits with chimps just as with other animals, such as breathing, drinking water, etc. This is evidence that the DNA in both chimps and humans were intelligently designed specifically for both species by an almighty powerful Creator.

Soft Parts of Dinosaurs

Out of all the evidence for the age of the Earth, this is one of the most well-established and interesting pieces of information. Scientists have found soft tissue, as well as flexible blood vessels in an unfossilized dinosaur bone. [10] In fact the scientist who discovered this, Mary Schweitzer, was so surprised at this finding that she tried to disprove it, yet she failed to do so and came to the conclusion that they were indeed red blood cells. [11]

T-Rex soft tissue

The cells pictured above found in a T. rex bone would not last longer than a few thousand years.



What this piece of evidence for Creationism shows is that, (since red blood cells and hemoglobins can't last for more than a few thousand years) the Earth is not as old as Evolutionists make it to be.

Earth's Magnetic Field

In the 1970s, scientist Dr. Thomas Barnes found that the Earth's magnetic field is decaying at a 5% rate per century. [12] Barnes proposed that our planet's magnetic field was caused by a delaying electric current. [13] If the Earth were to be indeed more than 10,000 years old, Barnes calculated that the original strength of the electric current would have been big enough to melt the Earth. [14]


Graph of magnetic field decay over time, showing reversals and fluctuations

The diagram shows how the Earth’s magnetic field has changed over time. The intensity shown in the graph could not have been much higher than the starting point shown, indicating a young Earth.





Sources
:

[1] http://www.apologeticspress.org...
[2] http://www.creationism.org...
[3] http://www.icr.org...
[4] http://www.earthage.org...
[5] http://creation.com...
[6] http://www.history.com...
[7] http://www.icr.org...
[8] https://www.thetrumpet.com...
[9] http://www.icr.org...
[10] http://creation.com...
[11] http://creation.com...
[12] https://answersingenesis.org...
[13] http://www.icr.org...
[14] http://creation.com...
Debate Round No. 2
triangle.128k

Pro

Biased sources

First, I would like to mention that NewLifeChristian has used very biased sources, such as Answers in Genesis or Institution of Creation Research. These aren't valid scientific sources, they are biased organizations. They also violate the scientific method. The scientific method in short, requires to examine evidence and draw conclusions from them. [1] What these creationist sites are doing is working down from the Conslusion. The conslusion would be a literal interpretation of genesis, then they examine evidence and distort it into seeing how it could prove creation.

Here's a comedical cartoon explaning why creationism doesn't involve use of the scientific method:






Catastrophic Events

My opponent insists that a volcano eruption is proof that natural structures can form rapidly, thus explaing how Pangea split up in just 6000 years. However, the temperature of lava can range around 700-1250 degrees centigrade. [2] Due to the high temperature of lava, it can reshape land far easier than water. Burden of proof is on NewLifeChristian to prove how water can reshape an entire continent. My opponent also claims that whale fossils in a Chilean desert is proof of the global flood in creation theory. While this is true, the fossils could have gotten there through a storm or a very large tide. [3]

As I mentioned in my previous argument, a worldwide flood explaining the fossils would mean they must have been randomly thrown around.



The Bible's account in Historical accuracy

NewLifeChristian's source defeats their own argument, because the source they provided to prove the Hanging Gardens of Babylon existed, explicitily stated that the Hanging Gardens didn't exist in Babylon. Further more, they didn't give a reliable and accurate source to prove why the Hittites people existed. Rather, they seem to give an unheard of news site called "The Trumpet" which is definitely not a scientific or reliable source. Further more, these historical events have nothing to do with Evolution being true. A book can say that the Earth orbits the Sun, and that the Earth is 90% land. You can't say the Earth is 90% land because that book says one thing that's accurate. NewLifeChristian must give actual proof of a literal interpretation of Genesis outside of the Bible.
Further more, more metaphorical interpretations of the Bible exist, and many Christians believe in theistic Evolution. Pope Francis stated that Darwinism and the Big Bang theory don't conflict with Christianity. [4]


DNA supports creation?

NewLifeChristian states that traits such as breathing and drinking water prove that a creator exist. He states that because the genetic similarity is there, it proves that it was "intelligently" designed by a creator. They state that it proves an almighty creator, but give little reason to believe so. If other animals didn't have traits such as breathing or drinking water, I fail to understand how they could live.


Dinosaur Blood

While these red blood cells were indeed found, this doesn't neccessarily prove a young-earth. According to research done on this, Iron had helped preserve the blood vessels for so long.

"he researchers also analyzed other fossils for the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, Schweitzer said.

"The problem is, for 300 years, we thought, 'Well, the organics are all gone, so why should we look for something that's not going to be there?' and nobody looks," she said.

The obvious question, though, was how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years. In a new study published today (Nov. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron." [5]


Earth's Magnetic Field

While this argument has been used by Young Earth Creationists, it's important to note that the magnetic field is not a valuable way to measure the Earth. It's not proven to decay at a steady rate, and how exactly the magnetic field of the Earth is generated is still not completely known. [6] The magnetic field is known to flunctuate, and it's strength isn't stable.







1. http://www.livescience.com...
2. http://volcano.oregonstate.edu...;
3. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
4. http://www.usatoday.com...;
5. http://www.livescience.com...;
6. http://apps.usd.edu...;
NewLifeChristian

Con

Biased Sources

All of Pro's sources are biased towards evolution; therefore, they are not reliable. Do you see what I mean?







Here's a comical meme explaining that just because you disagree with a source, doesn't mean it's not a reliable one.

Now that we got that over with, let's start the real debate. :-)

Transitionary Fossils

If your argument on transitionary fossils is indeed true, then how is it that dragonflies, snails, clams, and other animals appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions? [1] This itself is evidence for why fossils do not show transitional forms, but rather they show stasis. In fact, Mark Ridley, a well-known evolutionist professor of zoology at Oxford University, had the following to say about evolutionists using transitionary fossils in favor of evolutionism: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." [2] Not to mention, Richard Dawkins one of the most vocal proponents for Evolution was Mark Ridley's doctoral adviser. [3]

Image result for richard dawkins


Richard Dawkins, a vocal proponent for evolution, is pictured above.

Millions of Years

First of all, I would like to state that I do not believe that radiometric dating is innacurate. What I believe, as well as the Creationist scientific community, is that the way secularists interpret the data is incorrect. [4] Radiometric dating cannot accurately measure the age of rocks because it is based on assumptions which may or may not be factual. For instance, using the uranium lead method assumptions are made that the rock being dated had no lead content to begin with and that no lead was added or removed from the rock. Given that lead compounds are soluble in water this last assumption is something we cannot be definite on.

Organisms Arranged in Chronological Order

It is only fact that there is order in the fossils. However, this is what is expected by Creationists. [5] When we look at the order of fossils, we find marine invertebrate fossils placed lowest and when we look higher we find birds and mammals. The Bible states that the Great Flood began in the ocean basins; it states the fountains of the great deep broke open. This means the ocean floor was ripped apart, this would have generated massive tidal waves and tsunamis that would move towards the continents. The tsunamis and large tidal waves would have ripped up the sediments on the floor, and picked up the marine organisms; therefore, depositing them on the continents. After the water takes time to rise, the other animals will be buried as well in chronological order. The lowest being the marine organisms, and the highest being the birds and mammals.

Continental Drift

As I have already mentioned this in my first argument, I will use elements from it in my rebuttal. First, as I stated in my original argument, 'The Little Grand Canyon' was created in under ten hours from a minor eruption near Mt. Saint Helens' summit. [6] This is evidence that if a much larger catastrophe, such as the great flood and the seismic activity associated with the flood, happened it could potentially move continents rapidly. It is not the water that causes the continents to shift, rather it is the seismic activity associated with the flood, (the fountains of water from underground) that caused Pangaea to split.

Natural Selection

I do not deny that natural selection is happening, and am happy to use the term, as with most Creationists. [7] In fact, natural selection itself has nothing to do with evolution. It is an unavoidable part of the development of species within baramins (created kinds). What Creationists believe is vartiations (developments) within Biblical kinds (micro-evolution), we do not however believe in kind-to-kind evolution (macro-evolution).

Size of Noah's Ark

I would like to begin by saying that Pro clearly does not understand where Creationists stand. Creationists do not believe that every single living species today was present during the times of Noah and boarded the Ark, rather we believe every single Biblical kind boarded the ark.

Starlight

During the days of Creation, God created the stars supernaturally, as stated in the Bible; therefore, according to the Bible the stars did not come by means of a natural process. When we look at other factors in our solar system, including other solar systems, we see our decaying magnetic field and disintegrating comets. [8] This alone is evidence for a young Earth and Universe because of the fact that these could not last billions of years.

Sources
:

[1] http://www.icr.org...
[2] http://www.conservapedia.com...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://creationtoday.org...
[5] https://answersingenesis.org...
[6] http://www.creationism.org...
[7] http://creationtoday.org...
[8] https://answersingenesis.org...
Debate Round No. 3
triangle.128k

Pro

Transitionary Fossils

The article NewLifeChristian gives to talk about organisms that appear with no transitional fossils gives no evidence of this claim. And there might be missing links in the fossil record, this does not redeem Evolution as false because not all 'links' will be there. We have to work with the evidence we have. = Further more, NewLifeChristian decided to strawman my argument with quote mining.



While it is arguable that there are better pieces of evidence to prove Evolution like with DNA, this does not mean the fossil record can't prove Evolution. Further more, this quote was stated in a science journal entry which seems to have been published in the 1980s. [1] In other words, the quote is very old and new fossils would likely have been discovered in the course of over 3 decades. NewLifeChristian has dodged my argument with quote mining and giving a source with no evidence for it's claim.


Millions of years

While this is a downfall of radiometric dating, Isochron dating can help find the original parent to daugher element ratio in the fossil/rock being dated

[2] "Isochron dating bypasses the necessity of knowing the quantity of initial daughter product in the rock by not using that value in the computation. Instead of using the initial quantity of daughter isotope, the ratio of daughter isotope compared to another isotope of the same element (which is not the product of any decay process) is used as the comparison for isochron dating. The plot of the ratios of the number of atoms of the parent isotope to the number of atoms in the non-daughter isotope compared to the number of atoms of the daughter isotope to the non-daughter isotope should result in a straight line that intersects the vertical y-axis (which is the ratio of daughter to non-daughter isotopes). This point of intersection gives the initial ratio of daughter to non-daughter isotope"


Organsisms arranged in Chronological Order

[3] NewLifeChristian insists that the arrangement of fossils is a result of water rising up taking in the organisms living in lower altitudes first. This would be a very unlikely explanation, because the fossil arrangement isn't due to the altitudes the organisms lived at. For example, there were dinosaurs that lived in Africa [4] and humans first originated in Africa [5]. Humans originated from Africa and dinosaurs lived all over Africa. If a flood really happened to arrange organisms, why did the Humans rise to the top? Why did the dinosaurs sink? If it's due to their density, remember that there are light invertebrates down below.


Natural Selection

NewLifeChristian insists that micro-evolution can be true but macro-evolution can't be true. Micro-evolution is literally the same thing as Macro-evolution, the difference is the scale. [6] If micro-evolution happens quickly and is observable, it would be reasonable to see that organisms will be very different over the course of millions of years. Micro-evolution doesn't simply stop. It is like believing in centimeters but not meters. Enough centimeters would eventually be long enough to be a meter.




Size of Noah's Ark

I will accept that NewLifeChristian brought up a valid point that new organisms would have been created after the flood.





Starlight

NewLifeChristian has dropped my initial argument on the speed of light. No matter how the stars were created, light can't travel faster than a lightyear. Further more, it is proven by astronauts that stars do not form supernaturally. We have even observed steller nebulas in which stars seem to be forming. [7] An example is the Orion nebula. Astronomers have also observed star clusters [7] as a result after a nebula finished forming into stars. These stars however usually drift away from each other later. Astronmers can also see remnants of supernovas, which are though to eventually clump together from gravity into stellar nebulae.

Birth of a Neutron Star and Supernova Remnant

NewLifeChristian also states that comets and the decaying magnetic field prove a young earth. I have already refuted the magnetic field argument, which he seems to ignore. Comets are formed from icy rocks all the way in the Kuiper belt that come too close to the sun. [10] This does not prove a young Earth because only a few icy rocks actually come near the sun, most stay in orbit in the Kuiper belt. The icy rocks are thrown to the sun as a result of Neptune's gravitational interference, or possible collisions in the Kuiper belt. [11]











1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://apps.usd.edu...
3. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
4. http://www.southafrica.info...
5. http://humanorigins.si.edu...
6. http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
7. http://abyss.uoregon.edu...
8. http://earthsky.org...
9. http://chandra.harvard.edu...
10. http://www.space.com...
11. http://solarsystem.nasa.gov...;
NewLifeChristian

Con

Catastrophic Events

Pro challenges me to prove how water can re-shape an entire continent; however, it is not the actual water that re-shapes the continent. Rather, it is the seismic activity related to the flood that caused the continents to rapidly split and shift. In 2004, there was an earthquake in the Indian Ocean that resulted in movements of up to 15 or more feet along faults. [1] The energy of the earthquake was transmitted through the water, which in turn produced a massive tsunami that crippled coastlines all around the Indian Ocean basin.


Just some of the devastation caused by the tsunami is pictured above.


On top of this, even a few feet of movement on the San Andreas Fault in California can cause the ground to shake for miles, which often results in the collapse of structures such as freeways. The majority of the flood was most likely caused by seismic activity, i.e. tsunamis caused by earthquakes and water geysers caused by seismic activity (fountains of the deep). Looking at the impact of these minor events; we can only imagine the effects of a much larger seismic event.

The Bible's account in Historical accuracy

Pro tries to argue that the Bible is innacurate by stating that the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, according to my source, are actually the "Hanging Gardens of Nineveh". However, the current location and architect of the Hanging Gardens is still disputed. There is a general consensus that the gardens were built in 605 BC by King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon who is mentioned in the Bible. In fact, if you Google "when were the hanging gardens of Babylon built" the year 605 will pop up and the architect will be "King Nebuchadnezzar II" (king of Babylon). [2]

DNA Supports Creation?

What I was trying to get at by "DNA Supports Creation" is that Evolutionists can not use the humans are 98% related to chimps argument for evolution, starting with the fact that this is not true. The study which 'concluded' that humans and chimps are 98% related used isolated segments of DNA that we already share with chimps (not the whole genome). [3] Humans and chimps are actually 70% related looking at all of the DNA between chimps and us. The reason why this number may still seem so high is because chimps and humans, as well as all animals, share basic things in common like breathing, drinking water, etc. This shows that God designed animals uniquelyand individually.The '30%' shows that God made us significantly different then chimps.

Dinosaur Blood


There were obvious flaws in Schweitzer's findings regarding the connection of iron to the preservation of the blood cells for millions of years. [4] First, Schweitzer did not gather enough time-related measurements to estimate the maximum time that iron-treated soft tissues could last; therefore, the experiment did not really explain an effect lasting for millions of years. Second, according to the study “Ostrich vessels were incubated in a concentrated solution of red blood cell lysate,”. The problem with this is that ancient dinosaur and other fossils did not have the advantage of scientists treating their carcasses with a blood-soup concentrate. Lastly, many of the fossil biochemicals portrayed in the essay don't show evidence of nearby iron. One example of this is, researchers have found bone cells called osteocytes locked inside dinosaur bones, this includes a Triceratops horn core. The bone cells have fine and thread-like extensions that puncture the bone’s mineral matrix through tiny tunnels called canaliculi. Concentrated blood cannot penetrate and preserve those almost unreachable bone cells.

Earth's Magnetic Field


My opponent argues that the Earth's magnetic field is not a valuable way to measure the Earth's age; however,this is simply not true. A lot of well-thought-of and well-established research has been made regarding the Earth's magnetic field in relation to the age of the Earth. [5]

Sources:

[1] https://answersingenesis.org...
[2] https://www.google.com...
[3] http://www.icr.org...
[4] http://www.icr.org...
[5] http://creation.com...

Debate Round No. 4
triangle.128k

Pro

Catastrophic Events

I would like to ask NewLifeChristian where it says in the Bible about severe seismic earthquakes reshaping the continents. Or is that simply just an assumption that he is making? The Great Flood according to creation theory seems to be God causing a flood, due to the sin from Adam and Eve rebelling from god. I don't understand where the part about seismic activity is, unless you want to say that it's a coincidence all continents can fit together.


Historical accuracy of the Bible

While the exact location of the hanging gardens might not be known, why are they called the 'Hanging Gardens of Babylon?' Further more, I mentioned earlier that this has nothing to do with Evolution and Young Earth Creation. A book could say that the Earth orbits the sun, and it could say that water evaporates at 120 degrees centigrade. My opponent must give evidence of Creation outside the Bible. My opponent did not bother to refute the main point of my argument, instead they seem to try to prove that the Hanging Gardens prove why the Bible is true.


DNA supports Creation?

If humans and chimps were 4% related to each other, one could easily say "it's proof God designed all animals very differently and individually." The argument for DNA supporting creation is literally just saying "God made it like that, so it's proof for Creation." They seemingly ignored the argument I presented earlier. Also, I never brung up DNA evidence as an argument for Evolution in this debate.


Dinosaur Blood

NewLifeChristian argues that there weren't enough time-related measurements to explain why it could last millions of years. I'm not sure where my opponent is coming by this, but i'm going to assume that it's because you can't replicate millions of years in a lab. While this is true, it doesn't mean we can't make logical measurements and conclusions regarding the decaying/drying of the blood. They then go on to arguing that the bone did not have scientists treating it with chemicals to preserve it, and that there was no evidence of nearby iron. This is not true, because Iron is abundant in many living cells and tissues. The iron from the cells and tissues in the dinosaurs body could have preserved the bones, it does not need a scientist to help preserve it. [1]


Earth's magnetic field

NewLifeChristian has simply stated that what I said isn't true, and there's research to prove me wrong. He has simply ingored my previous argument, and not cared to explain the science behind the research proving so. I would like to challenge my opponent to explaint he so called "research" on how we can use the magnetic field to measure the age of the Earth. I have already explained my point here.



sources
1. http://www-als.lbl.gov...



Why I did better than my opponent

Part of the debate format was to explain why we did better than our opponent in round 5.

NewLifeChristian seems to be one round late in debunking my arguments, and in Round 4, he argued against the points I made in round 3, instead of focusing on my arguments in round 4. Further more, NewlifeChristian has included biased sources, none of them are actual scientific sources. I've included several university sites and scientific journals to prove my points. My opponent has also used Conservapedia to name one unreliable and biased source. Further more, he has dodged much of my points made. He dodged my argument on transitionary fossils using quote mining, and simply said "stars were created supernaturally" in response to my argument on starlight to name a few examples.



NewLifeChristian

Con

Historical accuracy of the Bible


My opponent says that if a book says something, that does not mean it is true. However, the Bible is not just any book. The Bible is the word of God. I believe that the Bible is infallible and evidence points toward the Bible being historically accurate. The Bible says the Earth was made in six days. I believe everything the Bible says is true. My examples with the Hanging Gardens and Hittites people were just to give evidence of the Bible's accuracy. Keep in mind these are only two of many other examples of the historical accuracy of the Biblical account.


DNA supports Creation

My opponent suggests that "they seemingly ignored the argument I presented earlier". If he is referring to his argument in Round 3, this is not true; it was addressed in Round 4. What I was trying to get to with this argument is, God made chimps different from humans. The secular arguments for chimps and humans being related 98% is simply not true since the 98% is based on comparison of a PART of the human and ape genomes. Furthermore, he says he "never brung up DNA evidence as an argument for Evolution in this debate". I never brought up Transitionary Fossils as an argument for Young Creationism because it is simply an idea we do not support;nevertheless, I rebutted why young creationists don't agree with the evolutionist idea of "Transitionary Fossils".


Earth's magnetic field


My opponent doesn't realize that I have referenced research showing the earth's magnetic field is young in round two.


Dinosaur Blood

The fact IS that Mary Schweitzer and her team found red blood cells in dinosaurs. However, it IS NOT a fact that it has been proven how or if iron can preserve these red blood cells for more than a few thousand years.


Transitionary Fossils


Transitional fossils are "the remains of those creatures which should be found ‘in-between’ one kind of creature and another kind." [4] There is a major flaw with the transitional fossil belief. The fact is, there are some missing links that have never been found between kinds. Perhaps, the best known is the missing link between man and ape. Remember the Piltdown Man hoax? That is probably the closest we have got to finding the missing link between ape and man.


Millions of years


My opponent has admitted that the uranium lead method of radiometric dating is based on assumptions that are not factuall. By the way, Isochron dating is a type of radiometric dating. This type of dating is also based on flawed assumptions. Y.F. Zheng of the Geochemical Institute at the University of Gottingen in Germany, wrote this in the international journal Chemical Geology:

"‘The Rb-Sr isochron method has been one of the most important approaches in isotopic geochronology. But some of the basic assumptions of the method are being questioned at the present time. As first developed the method assumed a system to have: (1) the same age; (2) the same initial 87Sr/86Sr ratio; and (3) acted as a closed system. Meanwhile, the goodness of fit of experimental data points in a plot of 87Sr/86Sr vs. 87Rb/86Sr served as a check of these assumptions. However, as the method was gradually applied to a large range of geological problems, it soon became apparent that a linear relationship between 87Sr/86Sr and 87Rb/86Sr ratios could sometimes yield an anomalous isochron which had no distinct geological meaning. A number of anomalous isochrons have been reported in the literature and various terms have been invented, such as apparent isochron (Baadsgaard et al., 1976), mantle isochron and pseudoisochron (Brooks et al., 1976a, b), secondary isochron (Field and Ra- Heim, 1980). inherited isochron (Roddick and Compston, 1977), source isochron (Compston and Chappell, 1979), erupted isochron (Betton, 1979; Munksgaard, 1984), mixing line (Bell and Powell, 1969; Faure, 1977; Christoph, 1986) and mixing isochron (Zheng, 1986; Qin, 1988). Even a suite of samples which do not have identical ages and initial 87Sr/86Sr ratios can be fitted to isochrons, such as aerial isochrons (Kohler and Muller-Sohnius, 1980; Haack et al., 1982).’3"


Organisms arranged in chronological order


My opponent argues that my explanation for organisms being arranged in chronological order is flawed because if it were to be true, then humans and dinosaurs would have been buried together. However, dinosaurs being buried below humans is most likely due to the fact that humans are significantly more intelligent than dinosaurs and possibly managed to survive parts of the flood and reached higher ground. That is, until the flood reached that higher ground.


Continental Drift

Genesis 7:11 states "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." My opponent insists that nowhere in the Bible does it state that seismic activity caused the flood; however, there is evidence pointing toward seismic activity, as well as, volcanic activity contributing to "breaking up" the "fountains of the great deep" or causing the flood. The continents shifting due to seismic activity is a theory as to how the continents shifted rapidly.


Natural Selection

My opponent says that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are literally the same thing; however, not by the way Creationists define the terms. The term 'micro-evolution', as defined by Creationists, is "variation within the Biblical kind". [3] On the other hand, the term 'macro-evolution', as defined by Creationists, is "the changing of one Biblical kind into another kind".


Size of Noah's Ark

My opponent probably should have done a little more research before saying Creationists believe all living species of animals today boarded the Ark during Noah's time.

Starlight

There are major flaws in my opponent's argument for light years somehow 'disproving' Creation. First, a light year is used to measure distance (not time). [1] Second, how do we know for sure that the speed of light today has been the same in the past? Actually, there is evidence pointing towards the speed of light slowing down;this research was led by Australian theoretical physicist Paul Davies of Sydney's Macquarie University. [2] Lastly (and most importantly), we cannot base arguments on assumptions, such as, the speed of light remaining constant.

Where My Opponent Gets It Wrong and Why I Did Better


To begin with, my opponent says I did not follow the format properly; however, he did not make the format clear. In fact, all he stated was 'everything else' and 'everything' for rounds three, four, and five. I had not debated the arguments made in round 3; therefore, this is the round I debated last. I feel that each rounds arguments should be addressed. In this round, as in previous rounds, I am following the structure of the debate ("Round 5: Everything and explain why we did better than our opponent ).

My opponent claims I have used unreliable sources. This is not true. You cannot say a source is unreliable and/or unscientific for not being a scientific journal or a university. If this were to be true, then information from news outlets such as CNN or Reuters would not be reliable (since both of them are neither scientific journals nor universities). Lastly, my opponent claims I have 'dodged much of his points made'. I have technically not dodged any of his claims. I have responded to all of his main arguments for evolution. Perhaps I have not responded to every argument he has made within every main argument, however, this does not mean my opponent can say I have dodged his arguments.

I believe I have done a better job than my opponent for multiple reasons. One being, my opponent goes on the attack during the debate (he has accused me of using 'unscientific' and 'unreliable' sources). I have not attacked any of his sources. Another being, my opponent clearly does not understand where Creationists stand. For example, my opponent has stated that Creationists believe EVERY single living species of animal present today boarded the ark. I understand where Evolutionists stand. I am not saying Evolutionists believe in monkey-to-man evolution, like my opponent is saying Creationists believe every single living species of animal present today boarded the ark. Lastly, my opponent accuses me of 'quote mining'. This is a term usually used by evolutionists in an attempt to justify that a quote of a well-known evolutionist confessing to one or more of the many weaknesses of the evolutionary paradigm is being taken out of context when in most cases it is surely not.


Links

[1] http://creationtoday.org...

[2] http://creation.com...

[3] http://www.scriptureoncreation.org...

[4] http://creation.com...

Debate Round No. 5
178 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
@ColeTrain I understand. If RFD's weren't so strict I myself would vote more often. I get tired of writing essays for RFD's, especially when I already have to wright enough essays for school assignments.
@Varrack I have not seen a vote with only a few sentences for a RFD get passed. Could you forward me to a debate where one has? I always see people being almost required to write an essay explaining their RFD just to make sure their vote doesn't get removed. Anytime I see a vote with a short RFD stay, is often because the vote didn't get reported.
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
You could make an RFD that's a few sentences and get it passed. Whiteflame has made that clear before, and I've seen tons of RFDs under 1,000 characters that were sufficient. It's really not hard, but some people like writing a lot for their votes.
Posted by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
@Blazzered. I understand that..... It just frustrates me so! It took me almost 2 hrs to make that vote, and it was reported twice..
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
@ColeTrain Many members don't care about if a vote meets the requirements or not. They don't look deep into how the website works or have the respect to follow the rules. They just want to win. They don't care about anything else. You see triangle.128k complain saying that voting system is "rigged". Many members do not wish to go through all the effort it takes to vote on a debate, seeing as how it basically requires you to write an essay for your RFD, and even then it can still be removed if any mistakes are made in it. They all knew your vote met the requirements, but seeing as how a number of votes were reported, you can see they were reporting all votes that didn't agree with them, in hopes there was a small mistake that could get that vote removed and thus give them an edge in winning the debate. As triangle.128k said, "If you can exploit a small mistake in an RFD, you can report it and get it removed.". The same situation happened in my first debate on here as well. People just refuse to simply accept the requirements and just want to win, which is shameful.
Posted by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
I understand, but it's insane. You should only report votes if YOU see a logical and worthy reason to remove it. I fail to see how mine shows that... It's a remarkably in-depth and detailed RFD...
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
@ColeTrain its a matter of trying to win. They report the votes that side with their opponent in an attempt to get it removed to help them win.
Posted by triangle.128k 1 year ago
triangle.128k
@ColeTrain Well to be fair, your votes are extremely biased. I've heard other people tell me that.
Posted by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
Why are all my votes getting reported? I analyzed in a more thorough manner than any of the other voters... and I don't see any of their votes being reported. I don't understand...
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ColeTrain// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com... Good job to both of you! Very well done!

[*Reason for non-removal*] The RFD is more than sufficient in analyzing the debate as a whole. While the voter is not allowed to utilize misconduct taking place outside of the debate (that includes the conduct section), the voter does explain that instances of misconduct within the debate contributed to the decision to afford conduct. Whether he views that as sufficient by itself is somewhat uncertain, but his explanation is sufficient to award that point.
************************************************************************
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
Who did you agree with before the debate?Tied
Who did you agree with after the debate?Tied
Who had better conduct?Tied
Who had better spelling and grammar?Con
Who made more convincing arguments?Con
Who used the most reliable sources? Tied

Firstly, let me state that conduct is a tie since both sides were equally cordial. Secondly, I will state that Pro made some very easy mistakes that should not have been made. For example, "Conslusion" was stated twice within close proximity of each other. Not only that, but the world "Conclusion" was capitalized, even though it is not a proper noun, as well as the fact that the very same picture that Pro brought up had the word conclusion in it, but still spelled it wrong. Argument goes to Con since much of what was stated by Pro was rebutted by Con, but not the other way around. At one point, Pro created an argument against Noah's ark, which Con expertly rebutted to the point where Pro started to agree with Con.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
triangle.128kNewLifeChristianTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD will be in the comments.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
triangle.128kNewLifeChristianTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: So Pro was able to demostrate that there is a high chance of evidence when it comes to evolution. He gives examples of Transitionary Fossils, Natural selection, and Con's rebutalls mainly consisted of cherry-picked arguments which show that a couple species do not a transitionary fossils and etc... These rebutalls do some damage, but overall Pro's cases were largely intact because his arguments consisted of information backed with scientific evidence. Con's arguments consisted of arguments in which he uses to Bible to base many of his arguments, and many of them are what ifs. "A catastrophe as large as that could have caused Pangaea to split into multiple continents quickly" Pro easily dismantles many of these arguments because he is able to demonstrate that Creationists don't follow the scientific method to prove facts. Con's sources are very biased, because there is no citations whether the info is reliable. Sources go to Pro because he gave science backed evidence with reliability.
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
triangle.128kNewLifeChristianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d1mX6a2wdVD0OeQGPbeomK5hIxKAtYeY_C8CMjHGmi4/edit?usp=sharing Good job to both of you! Very well done!
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
triangle.128kNewLifeChristianTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: http://www.debate.org/forums/science/topic/72969/