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

Pro Evolution vs young Earth Creationism.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Pro-lifeConservative has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 351 times Debate No: 94897
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (0)




I will be arguing for evolution against young Earth creationism.

First, the world cannot be less than 10,000 years old due to glacier carbon dating which show the world to at least 400,000 years old. [0]

Picture should be here.

Almost all Diamonds were formed at least 500 million years ago. This is much greater than 10,000 years ago.

"Almost every diamond that has been dated formed during the Precambrian Eon - the span of time between Earth's formation (about 4,600 million years ago) and the start of the Cambrian Period (about 542 million years ago). " [1]

The oldest fossil is over 3 billion years old, this is greater length of time than 10,000 years ago.

"Some of those ancient fossils, known as stromatolites, are more than 50 times older than Sue -- 3.45 billion years old," [2]

The furthest object in space took 13.2 billion light years, that's 13.2 billion years to reach Earth. 13.2 billion is greater than 10,000. [3]

I propose that instead one of two possiblities, God created man via evolution. That God created the first microorganisms which eventually evolved intom humans. The second possiblity is abiogenesis. [4]

Although these two ideas of how the first lifeform was formed contradict each other, either one acting indepently could both satifiy the critera of evolution and defeat creationism.

Thanks for the debate.



Glaciers and Diamonds: First, there was no evidence supporting the dating of diamonds in the Precambrian era in your source, nor of your claim regarding glaciers in its source. The source mainly stated how coal was not involved in most diamond formations. The source does not help your arguments in the least. From further research, I found no hard evidence supporting diamond formation in the Precambrian era, only a single article with the same anecdote. No human was around 4,600 million years ago to record this, as humans have, according to evolutionists like the Smithsonian Institution, only been on earth for 200,000 years at most (2). Carbon 14's half-life is 5730 years, so nothing older than 11460 years should have carbon 14 left. However, the diamonds and glaciers are dated as millions of years old, while still possessing carbon 14.

Light: Brian Thomas, M.S. states, "light-travel time cannot be used to argue against one view of origins if the alternative view faces the same type of issue." Simply put, a "billions of years ago big bang" could not produce the completely even cosmic microwave background radiation observed all across space. CMB is a faint glow invisible to the human eye, but visible with special radio telescopes, it is deeply involved in the horizon problem. The big bang states that hot spots emitting light spread heat to cooler spots. "Hot and cold spots that lie on opposite sides of the visible universe are simply too far apart to have reached this same temperature even after 13.8 billion years."
He goes on to state how light could be instantly visible from earth using a two-way model, stating, "If we use a convention that defines outbound light as traveling at half the measured two-way speed, then light could conceivably travel from distant stars to Earth in an instant," (3).
Another article on the ICR website further explains this problem and solutions to it. The four points begin with distance in outer space cannot be knowingly accurately measured. They are calculated using assumed trigonometric principles, but we cannot physically measure them, say, with a measuring tape, and have concrete evidence. It is simply conjecture. Secondly, he describes the potential shortcut taking of light though space. To me, this point was more confusing, so I will elaborate little. There are two concepts of shape in space: curved and straight. The nearest stars show little change between the two, but distant stars show variations of billions of years to fifteen years. The formula to change between straight to curved space is: SX01;2R tan^(-1)R89;{10;(r/2R){11; . Third are theories regarding complete differentiations in light speed over time, be it gradual slowing, dropping to its present rate after the Curse (Genesis Three), or even permeability of space after the Flood (Genesis Nine). Finally, the words "it is good." Surely, as God is incapable of lying, God would not call a creation good that would not be fully visible for several billion years. As such, God could have created it ""with the appearance of age."" Plants, animals, Adam, and Eve were created bearing fruit/fully mature, so why not stars whose light was already to earth? God did not create to deceive, but to be functional (4). Is an invention a good invention if you have to wait a century for the necessary technology to come out so it can be made? No!

Falsities in Carbon Dating: As carbon 14's half-life is 5730 or so years, it cannot be used to date the "millions" of years old objects it supposedly dates. If the objects (diamonds, rocks, fossils, need I go on?) are truthfully millions of years old, then there should be no carbon 14 left, yielding the radiometric and carbon 14 dating worthless. However, objects dated as millions of years old still have carbon 14 in them, carbon 14 that should have decayed entirely tens of thousands of years ago, not millions! On the same lines, helium is found today trapped in Zircon crystals supposedly millions of years old. Even in a critique of studies, the author chides the RATE group on using a location near a volcano, as heat increases the diffusion of helium, and still, helium is found in the zircons (7)!

God used Evolution: This is simply impossible, similar to what I mentioned earlier. Evolution is a process of "trial and error," different mutations staying as others die out in their inferiority. As such, evolution demands death. Only the helpful traits can stay, and the species, over many years of death and reproduction, becomes the "optimum" species. When God said, "it is good," he couldn"t have been referring to a system he set up that was a bunch of imperfect things changing and dying until they reached what God wanted. What God wanted, he created. Additionally, death did not occur until after the Fall (Genesis Three), so the death of organisms would have been impossible until after God"s creation had been done. God, being omniscient, could not have called an incomplete creation beautiful, just as one cannot get a one hundred on a half-finished paper (5).

Abiogenesis: A=not, bio=life, and genesis=beginning. So, a beginning of life from no life. While claims that scientists have "created" life exist, the Guardian, rather unwittingly, disproves everything in their article covering the work of Craig Venter. The Guardian writes, "Craig Venter and his team have built the genome of a bacterium from scratch and incorporated it into a cell to make what they call the world's first synthetic life form," (6). The problem is that they didn"t make life. They made a genome, which is nearly identical to a computer code, and put it into a pre-existing cell. The article goes on to write that the technology might later be used to soak up CO2, or make vaccines. While all this sounds good, pardon the new biological weaponry that is now half-possible or the chance of it escaping and essentially destroying the equilibrium of everything, no life is being created. The life exists in the cell. The DNA and RNA they are transplanting is the code to perform functions. However, no life is being created, created meaning "something from nothing".

Mount St Helens Eruption and Aftermath: Claims that the earth must be old due to formations such as the Grand Canyon, the rock needing millions of years to be carved out. When Mount St Helens erupted, evolution and old earth theories were essentially disproved. OBSERVED newly formed rock caps were radiometrically dated at 350,000 years (8), 400 foot thick stratification has been laid since the eruption, including a 25 foot single day deposit. Rills and gullies over 125 feet deep were formed rapidly, and an enormous peat layer similar to some coal beds was laid down on Spirit Lake (9).

Fossil Inconsistencies: For good fossils to form, covering must be rapid, which is evidenced by fossils of animals in labor or eating (10). The rapid covering is impossible without a global catastrophic event to quickly cover them, not them dying and sinking to the bottom evolutionists propose. Finally, the horse"s "evolution" is observed, revealing fossils preserved in the same sediment layers. The problem is that the one fossil supposedly evolved millions of years after the other fossils (11). More fossil evidence to come!

What fossil evidence do you find most compelling?

Debate Round No. 1


Outline R2

I. Intro
II. Glaciers and coal
III. Half-life
IV. Light speed
V. Zicron crystals
VI. God used evolution
VII. Abiogenesis
VIII. Mt Helen
IX. Fossils consistencies
X. Conclusion
XI. Sources

I. Intro

I have made my argument so I will rebut my opponent's argument. I didn't expect my opponent to make a serious debate. I was surprised at the depth of my opponent's argument. Nevertheless, I think with hard work and determination I can defeat my opponent's argument

II. Glaciers and coal

First off, the reason the dating method is not mentioned is most people don't care which method is used and don't have the level of skepticism of a Young Earth Creationists. There are plenty of dating methods besides carbon 14. [5] Radiocarbon, K-Ar dating, and Uranium-Lead are a few examples of dating techniques.

III. Half-life

By the same article, you can see that an isotope can go through multiple half lives. This proves your claim of only two maximum half lives completely false. To reach a million years, carbon 14 would go through 174.5 half lives, that's 1/2^175. The number is very small, but would still be greater than zero.

Furthermore, you don't mention which diamonds have carbon 14 in them. If a few diamonds have carbon 14 and most don't then this is most likely contamination. Thus, the carbon 14 came from another source.

IV. Light speed

Honestly, I didn't understand what you were stating here. Either the subject matter was too advanced for me, or you phrased it so confusingly that I couldn't make sense of it. The best scientific explanation for the hot spots is a parallel universe. [6]

After the hot spots, you lost me, I really did try to interpret what you were saying, yet I couldn't make sense of it. Light speed is well accepted within the scientific community.

V. Zicron crystals

"Misidentification of Fenton Hill Gneisses and the Serious Consequences for Dr. Humphreys
More Bad Science: Humphreys et al. Violate the Rules on Naming Rocks
Questionable Sample Processing" [7]

This article is advanced, yet the validity of the zicron crystal's processing has been questioned. The RATE group seems unreliable and non-credible.

VI. God used evolution

My opponent focuses on beauty and the perfection of God's creation. Yet, many species are becoming extinct. Children starve to death every day and others get cancer.

"Thus, current extinction rates are 1,000 times higher than natural background rates of extinction and future rates are likely to be 10,000 times higher." [8]

VII. Abiogenesis

There are many scientific theories on which form of Abiogenesis is correct. All of them reinforce the idea of Abiogenesis. [9]

VIII. Mt Helen

"This web page contains many of the misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and factual distortions that creationists have concocted surrounding the eruption at Mt. St. Helens. The most striking aspect of these web pages is the total lack of any citations or references for the claims being made."

Seems to be there is too much misinformation for the Mt. St. Helens claim to be taken seriously.

IX. Fossils consistencies

There was billions of years and billions of organisms for fossils to be created. Yes, individually its improbable for an organism to become covered shortly after dying. Yet, considering the time frame and the amount of animals, it seems probable to have plenty of intact fossils.

X. Conclusion

I think my opponent mentioned that these events happened before humans were born. We can't physically observe microorganisms with the naked eye, yet we know they exist. Same with many small reactions at the atomic level. Yet, there is evidence the reaction happened. The same is true with fossils and dating, nobody saw the events, but we have copious evidence to prove the events probably happened.

I probably missed a few points. My opponent's argument were difficult to understand at some points. I think I performed a mediocre job of destroying my opponent's arguments. Thanks for debating.

XI. Sources

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Pro-lifeConservative 8 months ago
whom Satan used, and forced them from the Garden.
Job was a patriarch, and was afflicted by Satan beacause of his righteousness. He thought Job would curse God, but Job didn't. He talked with God, and God showed him his creation, and that he was in control. God gave everything Job lost back to him, and he prospered again.

This is an argumwnt I prepared, with thour Internet access, and was unable to post before it expired. The preceding commwnt goes bedore this one, and the one bedore that can be ignored.
Posted by Pro-lifeConservative 8 months ago
Surely, the enitre prehistoric dinosaur population was not just a stepping stone for the Komodo Dragon? The sheer number of ancient accounts of dragons shows that humans have known about large, reptilian beasts for well over 500 years. The account of Saint George and the Dragon must have some truth, as he (I think) is England's patron saint to this day! Since it could not have been a Komodo dragon Saint George fought, for they are not huge, nor do they breathe fire (but Leviathan (Job 40-42) does!). The rest of the reptiles on the European landmass are snakes and maybe small lizards. Maybe. Scales, breathing fire, and the size seem too large for simply imagination. Humans have encountered dinosaurs, just calling them dragons and slaying them because they are carnivorous, possibly fire-breathing behemoths (also in the Job passage! Most likely a brachiasaurus(?) based on the description. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted withing the last thousand years, either they never went extinct when we have been told (lied to, as I say), or we have many really crafty, serendipitously similar stories crossing cultures and ages. I may post a picture in the comments, if I can, of an Indian cave carving compared to a rendering of a dinosaur.
If I remeber correctly, you seemed a little unsure about my use of Biblical passages, so I will try to explain briefly here.
Genesis, the frist book of the Bible, covers the beginning of the world to the Fall, foreshadows the coming Savior, and explains how people went on from there.
The Fall: Adam and Eve, the first people, were in the Garden of Eden, and lived in perfect harmony with God. He had one rule for them, don't touch the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, in the middle of the garden, nor eat from it, lest you die. Satan/Lucifer, a fallen angel, decieves Eve into eating from it, saying she would not die, but her eyes would be opened. She ate from it, and gave some yo Adam, who also ate, and their eyes were opened. They suddenly
Posted by Pro-lifeConservative 8 months ago
apologize for the meager argument, I have been busy, away, and with computer problems. As such, I am turning this out hurriedly and without Internet, so I will stick to more theoretical problems sith evolution, and facts I already know, with citations potentially coming in the comments? It has indeed been a pleasure debating with you, thank you.
First, you failed to answer my question of, "What fossil evidence do you find most compelling?" I really would like to hear an answer, and there should be one. In the event that there is no compelling fossil evidence, your argument is destroyed. Evolution needs fossils to show the progression from species to species, which it currently lacks. Even Darwin wrote that there were no transitional fossils!
Evolutionist Claim:
Relations between specimens points to a common ancestor.
Creationist Claim:
Species similarites point to a common Creator.
Similarities also point to the different families of animals.
If evolution is real, we should be seeing, for a off the cuff example, horse fossils turning into giraffe fossils. Rather, we see horse-like fossils, like some oddly almost entirely resembling the Hyrax, staying horse-like fossils!
A question for you, from my lack-of-Internet ignorance: If evolution says that certain organisms, such as monkeys, evolved ino humans, why do we still see monkeys today? Since the supposed mutation(?) is obviouly leading to more information, it is a good mutation. Then why are the monkeys dying out? The example should apply to all cross-modern day species "evolutions."
Evolution also touts a gain of information, while creationism promote a loss of information. Are there close living relatives of the Dodo bird today, or the Tasmanian Tiger? How about T. rex or any of the other dinosaurs? The mass number of "observed" extinctions shows a steady loss of information. Since the Fall, death has been in the world. As such, things are dying, and their unique genetic codes with them.
Posted by Pro-lifeConservative 8 months ago
I apologize for the lack of an argument, I was suddenly away this weekend, and I I was unable to post an argument. Please answer the question I asked, concerning the most compelling fossil evidence. If no evidence is compelling for you, your argument is void, as evolution stands new ly entirely on fossils. For even Darwin admitted there were no transitional fossils.
Posted by Stupidape 8 months ago
Wow, I won my opponent ff I thought I would have to fight more.
Posted by Stupidape 9 months ago
As for Mt. St. Helens
Posted by Stupidape 9 months ago
"However, the diamonds and glaciers are dated as millions of years old, while still possessing carbon 14."

Can I have a source for this claim?

As for containing carbon 14 in a million years the carbon would go through 174.5 half lives. That's 175 rounded up. Meaning they would have 1/2^175 left of the original. Which will be very small amount of carbon 14, but there will still be some.
Posted by Stupidape 9 months ago
1 day, 16 hours. I'm sure I can process all of my opponent's argument in that time, sarcasm off.

It is time for me to face reality I only got 40 hours or so to respond, and there is no way I can parse, understand, research a response, formulate the response, and spell/grammar check it within the time allotted.

Instead, I will try to respond without understanding what you are saying. Expect a response in about 28 hours or so.
Posted by Stupidape 9 months ago
Here's the counter argument to your Helium and Zicron crystals.
Posted by Stupidape 9 months ago
Wow, the young Earth creationists are really trying.

"by Timothy K. Christman, Ph.D., Columbus, Ohio"

They got a Ph.D. on their side. Now I feel better that I don't understand everything stated here. A lot of people assume YEC are really dumb, yet I'm seeing the complete opposite is true.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.