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

Should Young Earth Creation Be Considered a Scientific Theory?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/30/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,096 times Debate No: 35189
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (27)
Votes (3)




This debate will be over whether or not young earth creation should become a scientific theory. No trolling please. This is only examining YEC, not criticizing any other scientific theory, only how YEC stands up to the evidence. The Bible is not evidence, but may be quoted. "Quote mining" is not acceptable evidence either.

My opponent will give reasons / evidences to young earth creation, while I will provide reasons / evidences to show why it should not be a scientific theory.

Young Earth Creation- Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the idea that the Universe, Earth and life on Earth, were created by the God of Christianity 6,000-10,000 years ago.

Scientific Theory- A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

My opponent should be familiar with the criteria of a scientific theory.

No videos. Only pictures, and text.
Links may be used as citation, but it cannot contain an argument. Citation is only necessary if asked for.

Any further questions will be addressed in the comment section PRIOR to the debate.

Round 1- Acceptance only
Round 2- Both pro and con present their arguments. No rebuttals during this round.
Round 3- Rebuttals
Round 4- Counter- Rebuttals and closing statements.


I accapt this debate challenge.

though first round is only for accaptance, I would like to make sure the audience that decided to invest there time in reading this debate and who are going to consider voting on it, I'd like to make them aware of the fact that this debates character limit is 2,000.

that means I have just 1,703 left after typing up that little paragraph.

1634 now.

they go away fast; and so if your planing on giving an honest assesment of my or my opponents arguments you must first remember we are not going to be able to present and argue over a large or even medium size amount of scientific data.

This will be a small short debate by its very settings, so factor that into your evaluations however you want when reading and voting. I will try to make my 2,000 characters each round well worth your reading as you do, and to have the most impact on this debate.

I look foward to the challenge such a debate will provide, and I wish my oppont good luck and hope for a fun and good intellegent debate.

986 now just to put some further perspective on the audience....

I await my opponents response. :)

(888 left here)
Debate Round No. 1


Should: expresses desirability or rightness

Contention 1: Distant Stars
With current scientific methods, we can see some stars that are millions, even billions of light years away! But if the universe is only 6,000 years old, we shouldn't be able to see the stars, for the light would not be able to reach earth for us to observe. With this alone, it is logical to conclude that the universe is at least billions of years old, because we are seeing light that would have come from a stay billions of years ago

Contention 2: Dating and Ancient Fossils
My opponent may argue that God made the earth with age, so we would expect to see dating turn up results older than 6,000 years. And I actually agree to a certain degree on this. But where it falls off, is when we see fossils being consistently dated at millions of years, and considering that those animals could not have died before the universe was created, we should not see things being dated at over 6,000 years where there are fossils in the same layer. We also don't see a strata where every "kind" is located. Suggesting that they didn't live at the same time. And even if all organisms were created, the ecosystem would fail because there would be organisms that are way to well adapted next to organisms that are adapted to past ecosystems. It would be understandable if the fossils were found in different regions, but when they are found in the same place, and the earth is only 10,000 years old, it means that they would need to live in ecosystems in which they could not even survive.

Contention 3: Predictability and Usefulness
One of the most important criteria of a scientific theory are its predictive and useful capabilities in real life situations. I stand that YEC has no predictive or useful capabilities. I ask pro to give a real world application of YEC.

I would also like a definition of "kind."


As per the rules I will not rebut my opponents points until round 3.

Opening Case: First let me state that it must be remembered that it is not my job to PROVE YEC to anyone this debate. The resolution does not ask if YEC is valid as a scientific fact, but if it is valid as a scientific theory. Because of this presented evidence for making a case for alternate theory’s or even contentions that give reason to cast doubt on the YEC theory are not strictly relevant and do not need to be rebutted by me this debate (although I will rebut any contention my opponent offers just cause)

So what sort of contentions are relevant? Just what criteria is it my job to support to prove the resolution? The answer is in my opponents provided definition of ‘scientific theory’. While I do not have to prove that YEC is the right or even the best theory out there based on the tested and observed data, I do have to prove it is in fact grounded in tested observed data. YEC is not a valid scientific theory if all there is behind it is non-evidence based faith, I must show data YEC offers to answer.

I comfortably believed in an Old Earth for many years beside of my belief in God. Still could today and it would bother my faith none, however science lead me to YEC. The following is some of the data that convinced me the most.

Polonium Halo Rings:

Dinosaurs have existed with people:

Evidence for the radically different pre-flood earth:

Evidence for the global flood of Noah:

As a collective whole, these things do not fit well within the framework of Darwinism which I have learned of problems with but does fit wonderfully under YEC.

Debate Round No. 2


I do agree that you do not need to prove anything because things can only be proven mathematically, not scientifically. The only facts science can have are the data collected, a theory does not become a fact, they are separate things

I do believe that my reasons should be addressed because they show inconsistentcies with YEC, and a scientific theory fails if there is any evidence that is inconsistant
Like These:

While it was not stated in my definition, I did ask for my opponent to be familiar with the criteria of a scientific theory.

I will stick to refuting the claims made by your links, and not the entire topic it is titled to support.

Polonium Halo Rings:
I would appreciate it if your sources had scientific papers referenced in them.

Dinosaurs Have Existed With People:
The picture your source is calling a dinosaur, is actually an exotic pig, or a maybe baby rhino. But defiantly not a stegosaurus. It has external ears, hooves, and the wrong kind of tail, which is found in mammals (pigs) and not dinosaurs. The head in the drawing is much too big for the body of a dinosaur. I find no source necessary except your source, to show that it is not a dinosaur.

Evidence for the radically different pre-flood earth: This link only shows that earth undergoes climate change. And shows how a flood is consistent with some pieces of evidence found. But, it is cherry-picking data. But I can only refute, not present, so here are links that address the conclusions drawn.

Evidence against a global flood: I don't have the time nor space to refute all 114 claims this would require another debate. Some objections though...


I am familiar with what the criteria for a scientific theory is, however I disagree with you on how I should go about defending a theory as valid this debate. Especially considering the character limits.

But I will address your points regardless.

Carbon Dating: Carbon Dating is the reason you cant seriously expect any kind of inconsistency you manage to point about YEC would invalidate the theory, for the vast inconsistencies from Carbon Dating has never caused the Theory of Evolution to be tossed out the window. The inconsistencies are so bad that sometimes parts of the same creature are dated with large difference in age.

Predictability and Usefulness: YEC has been pretty useful in the experiments it has inspired such as creation of a pre-flood biosphere to grow plants in. However I reject your introduction of this criteria, it’s inherently absurd. As if Science could not be used to make perfectly useless but valid theories. Schrödinger’s Cat cannot possibly be proven to be alive and dead when you’re not looking at it, and the theory certainly hasn’t helped us make that machine on the TV show “Sliders” yet. Not to mention this criteria would invalidate macro-evolution as well, by definition it takes so long to occur that it cannot be observed and thus no observable results can be predicted by it.

Running out of space, have to wrap it up now: all of your responses do prove there are numerous way’s to look at the data that is out there, my point though that YEC comes from conclusions based on actual data is still proven though, because I provided some of the data we have observed and built our theory from. To prove YEC is a fact I would have to prove that art can only be a stegosaurus. To prove YEC is a valid theory though I need only show that it can be viewed as a stegosaurus

Debate Round No. 3


Before starting my refutations, I want to be sure that the audience knows that a scientific theory cannot become a scientific fact. Ex-Cell Theory, Atomic Theory, The Theory of Gravity, Germ Theory. They don't become laws, and they don't become facts. No matter how well supported they may be

Carbon Dating: I never once mentioned mentioned carbon dating in any of my contentions. I only mentioned dating in general. And there are many types of dating. Carbon dating is just one. The consistency comes when people date the same fossil with many different types of dating, and then when there is a date that matches with most of them, it is used. Certain types of dating are used in certain situations, carbon dating is only good for a certain time frame

Predictability and Usefulness: Schrodinger's Cat isn't a scientific theory. It's a theory. And it is science. It is not a scientific theory itself.Every theory have to have some use, otherwise there is no point in studying it. Weather it is right or wrong. Macro-Evolution does predict things though. It predicts vestigial organs, it predicts that we find certain things in our DNA, it predicts we find certain fossils to be found at certain levels in the geologic record. And so far, everything we have found is consistent. Whether you like it or not. And it is used in many fields, primarily medicine and genetics.

Final Refutation: No, to prove YEC as a theory, you would need to prove that it can only be a stegosaurus. The evidence to support a theory cannot be a guess in itself. And I thought my explanation pretty much showed beyond a reasonable doubt that it could not be a dinosaur

I have shown that my opponent doesn't understand dating methods and how they are used in the field, based on his explanation of why he contends carbon dating. YEC may use actual data, but it either cherry picks its data, or makes it more than it actually is, and he thinks it is acceptable because we are calling it "only" a theory, and not a fact!


Stego-Art: No I would not need to prove it had to be a stegosaurus, an no your counter explanation does not remove reasonable doubt that it is not a stegosaurus, and if this independent point was more important to this debate resolution, and I had enough characters to be more detailed and thorough in rebuttals, I would go into those details. As things are though, I have to press on.

Dating: I suppose you didn’t specifically bring up carbon dating, but that is the method most often used, and a critical look at other dating methods whether it be Radon, Potassium-Argon, or whatever other kind you want to refer too, all has many of the same problems. I would be detailed, but space only allows me to briefly make the point that the commonly relied on dating methods are not good enough to ‘end all discussion’.

Usefulness: Regardless though of what you think of what ‘Schrödinger’s Cat’ is though, the best you arguments establishes is that there would be no point in studying the theory itself or teaching it. and if the resolution was “YEC should not be taught in schools” you would have a point but the resolution is “is it a valid theory” so you do not.

Also if I had the space to go into why your presentation of Macro Evolution as having any real contribution to any of the fields you have mentioned, I would, but as it stands I’m going to have to rest with you did not challenge YEC has inspired research that created the Pre-flood biosphere.

Final Summary: My opponent is fantasizing when he thinks he can show that anyone doesn’t understand Dating methods in a debate with 2,000 characters, we have both had to be reserved in details and data we can refer. and like it or not in high school they do teach theory’s can become laws.

Debate Round No. 4
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Australian aboriginals and some other cultures have a continuous history dating back over 40,000 years, with in the central region, there were no flood tales in that period on their drawings and stories. Also they never lost any great number of people from such a flood, which would have wiped them out entirely. Yet, they lost nobody.

All the native flood myths around the world took place at different periods, because they were all either local floods or tsunamis in their region, at different periods around the world.
They do not coincide enough to be from a single global flood, which was plagiarized by Moses from the "Epic of Gilgamesh", when he took the writing on the tablet on top of a temple in Ur, that the whole world was covered. Which means, that person survived on the top of the temple and described the water reaching the horizon or as far as he could see, likely around 10 to 15 miles maximum.
It was the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers joint flooding which filled the local basin.
That is all it was, because it occurred at roughly that same time.
Noah, is believed to be a person trying to take his animals to the local market, but he and his boat were washed downstream and ended up on a hill, from where they had to walk their animals back to market.
Yet, like all stories of Moses, he exaggerated the tale magnificently! LOL :-D
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Oh, BTW on Laurence D Dumbo's site for proof of a Global Flood.
Nothing he stated is really proof.

It is true that such proof does not exist.
A rainbow means it is still raining, not that the raining has stopped.
It is just rain with the sun behind the viewer looking into the rain.
Laurence D Smart, evidently left his Intelligence somewhere and couldn't find it again.

There is nothing the least bit rational in the form of evidence on his site.

All of his points have been defeated decades ago.
He evidently never read any of that which destroys his statements.
I and millions of others have.
So he is trying to con a shrinking group of people.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
I think the definition of scientific theory needs a better presentation.
A scientific theory must explain rationally in a way that can be confirmed by experimentation some verified phenomenon or fact.
Biology has thousands of confirmed almost factual phenomenon which The Theory Of Evolution explains adequately.
Young Earth Creation explains None of these in a scientific framework, thus it cannot become a scientific theory.
If The Theory of Evolution was disproved today, Young Earth Creationism would still not get a consideration.
Another Theory would be devised that explains all the evidence and phenomenon that Evolution explained, plus that which Evolution could not explain.
Likely it would be called Evolution II.
Posted by Enji 3 years ago
For clarification - Schroedinger's cat is a thought experiment, not a theory or a scientific theory. Also, AresKnight is correct that scientific theories do not become facts or laws; a scientific law is an empirical generalisation of a certain phenomena (e.g. Newton's first law of motion) whereas a scientific theory is a unified explanatory framework (e.g. Classical mechanics).
Posted by Marauder 3 years ago
I do not know what is up with the character counter in the debate. Microsoft word measured my final round to have less characters than your and under 2,000 with spaces so i should not have had to cut anything, yet DDO said I was 1,600 over and then after cutting a short section and re pasting it, it had said I was over 2,000 characters too long. It's logically impossible to cut characters and still somehow add them yet this site thought I did. I had to make it load 1 letter first from an empty screen to fix it, but it makes me wonder if a similar problem did not make my first draft measured longer than it was.

though I had no room I thank you for having this debate with me, and for not forfeiting any rounds.
Posted by AresKnight 3 years ago
got that last round in with 10 mins to spare. :) close one
Posted by Marauder 3 years ago
to be honest I think this will help me in my future debate with larger character limits, if in 2,000 I've discovered you really simply cant say much on more than 3 things, than in 4,000 that means I should keep the number 6 as the maximum amount of arguments I want to fit into that space, and for 6,000 character it would be 9 points or arguments, and etc.
Posted by AresKnight 3 years ago
Yeah i agree, it is a bit difficult. I should have made it 4,000 chars. Oh well.
Posted by Marauder 3 years ago
I will post sources for my claims in those rebuttals next round. I did not know what else to cut or shorten this round.
Posted by Marauder 3 years ago
I must say I am enjoying the challenge of this 2,000 character debate, I had to cut so much and even flat out abandon acknowledging some of your arguments at all in more than a general sense. you basically cant say anything significant on more than 3 argument point in a 2,000 character debate I guess.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Jegory 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: CON waffled on about the character limit, ironically wasting space... and then finished his first round with 888 characters left. Bad conduct. S&G: Horrific spelling mistakes by CON.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: I will merely cast my vote due to the wording of the debate. Should young earth creation be considered a "scientific theory". If this stated should young earth creation be a theory in general I would sadly have to agree with Pro. Due to the fact any argument can be considered a theory. Stating that I will no judge just by the content within this debate alone. After reading the content both contenders showed they demonstrated considerable knowledge of the subject at hand. The only thing I can grade this own is sources. Both contenders did an amazing job demonstrating and explaining why the supported their belief. I am an atheist and have been studying apologetics and theology since I was 16. In that regard, I will say that pro offered one of the best arguments I have seen on this site support YET. I would have voted this debate a tie due to great content on both parts, but due to the accuracy and credibility I must give CON the vote for sources.
Vote Placed by Enji 3 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 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: Pro wasted too many characters on unnecessary text. For example, in Pro's opening case Pro used over 1300 characters explaining what he needed to demonstrate, leaving him fewer than 700 characters to actually demonstrate it. Con's opening case, in contrast, focussed on claims directly related to the resolution, using only 43 characters to clarify an aspect of the resolution. Pro's opening on-case claims consisted of titles (e.g. "Polonium Halo Rings:") and sources. This is not an argument; arguing from sources is usually not accepted in debates, and Con explicitly stated in the rules that links may not be used to make an argument. Pro dropped some of Con's opening claim regarding distant stars and did not sufficiently address dating methods, simply discarding them all as "flawed" without substantiating that claim. Arguments to Con. Con used more objective secondary sources which cite many primary scientific sources. Sources to Con.