The Instigator
TheMarquis
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
genesis01
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The validity of evolution over young Earth creationism.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 704 times Debate No: 72461
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

TheMarquis

Pro

You seem very confident about your beliefs and like to parade them, so please, allow me to debate you on the issue of evolution. I know that you mentioned carbon dating, but that is a dead horse. Every young Earth creationist I've met has tried to pull that one. This debate will be my millions of years of trial and error against your ten thousand years of divine intervention. As this is posted as a science debate, I expect your citations to be scientific.
genesis01

Con

I accept, please present your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
TheMarquis

Pro

I would like to begin with calling both of our citations into question. Backing evolution is the entire scientific community. You can make any claim that you'd like about propaganda but at the end of the day what they say is something you can hang predictions on. There are some things we cannot yet predict perfectly, like the weather, or anything with which we forget to account for every variable, but there are others we know. If two objects are about to collide and we know the force behind each, the conditions of the environment, and the schematics of each, then we can tell you exactly where everything will go. Police also use science instead of the bible and they can catch a lot of criminals that way. The bible is not a very good source for these things. I cannot use it to catch a criminal, for sure. In fact; it has a bad history with prophecies.(1)

1: http://faithskeptic.50megs.com...
genesis01

Con

genesis01 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheMarquis

Pro

1- What Evolution Is
To discuss evolution it is good to define evolution early on. "Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms."(1) "Evolution is defined as the process of growth and development or the theory that organisms have grown and developed from past organisms."(2) Evolution is a very slow process.

2-Proof of Evolution
An excellent place to start in discussing evolution is the fossil record.(3) The fossil record is a record of all of the fossils that people have found. It is obviously not complete, But what the scientists do have is a pretty clear map.(4) They have clear evidence of change. While it is impossible to have very link, there is very clear evidence of transitional species.(5)

3- Evidence Against Young Earth Creationism
Young Earth Creationism tends to suggest that the world is around six thousand years old.(6) Carbon dating is accurate for dating organic or once organic material within thousands of years.(7) In 2,000 it was discovered that modern man has been around much longer than that. Two Homo Sapien skulls in Ethiopia were found dating back 160,000 years(8). And Carbon dating is perfectly valid. Most of its supposed flaws come from people trying to use it to do things that it isn't made to do(7).

1: http://www.nas.edu...
2: http://www.yourdictionary.com...
3: http://www.agiweb.org...
4: http://www.fossilrecord.net...
5: http://biologos.org...
6: https://answersingenesis.org...
7: http://www.icr.org...
8: http://www.berkeley.edu...
genesis01

Con

Your argument was weak. Anyhows, I am now going to post my argument.


The fossil record

While evolutionists like to use the fossil record as their evidence, the record doesn't speak for itself. While we can make logical guesses on how they came here, it's more valid if we have a written true story of someone who was there. Yahweh was there and he has told people to write his stories in the bible of a written account of the past.

The fossils everywhere is evidence of a global wide flood. A flood could have altered the terrain and thrown fossils everywhere.

The transitional forms discovered could easily be the offspring of mixbreeding monkeys and humans. There's such a thing called a liger but do we say that tigers evolved from lions? No.


Radiometric Dating

Radiometric dating is dating used to determine the age of rocks by measuring the amount of radioactive decay. However, we don't know the initial conditions of the rock or the decay rate. This falsified radiometric dating.



It's the same evidence, different interpretations.

I mentioned before, the fossil record and all is all evidence of the past and our origins. However, you can't know for sure what happened by naturalism using observational science. An evolutionist who believes in billions of years and darwinism would interpret the same evidence as a biblical creaitonist in a DIFFERENT WAY.

While we can form intelligent guesses of the past based on historical science, we can't know for sure because you weren't there.

Imagine walking into a room with an hourglass. The hourglass may have some sand on the top and some sand on the bottom. However, you can't calculate how much sand was truley at the top. You can make a logical guess but factors such as cracks in the glass and if a person took out sand could highly off throw results.

However, there was someone there to account for what was there. That someone was god, he has inspired people to write stories based on his words and they were put all together into the Bible. The bible has proven to be trustworthy and reliable accurate accounts of the past.



Evolution

Evolution suggests that life came from non-life. However, this has never been observed making evolution not really holding up with science.

There is also no observable information in which new information can be added to an organism's genetic code. From going from a fish to an amphibian, new code would have to be added. There is no new code which pretty much disproves evolution.

how can evoution happen then? it can't.


What we observe is that humans are humans and monkeys are monkeys, and fish are fish. These are 2 scientific evidences against evolution.

THe second law of thermodynamics also disprove evolution.




Sources

http://www.icr.org...





Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by triangle.128k 2 years ago
triangle.128k
You could have still gone more in-depth. I hate to say it but I think that genesis had a better argument.
Posted by TheMarquis 2 years ago
TheMarquis
I look forward to it.
Posted by genesis01 2 years ago
genesis01
Sorry, I forgot to post my argument. I'll try posting my next one soon.
Posted by TheMarquis 2 years ago
TheMarquis
I apologize for being lazy before. I picked it up.
Posted by TheMarquis 2 years ago
TheMarquis
Not to be rude, Triangle, but I am getting the feeling that I won't have to go too in depth for this debate. If this becomes a real challenge I am sure I will be up to the task, but judging from the poll that I saw earlier I won't need to put a whole lot of effort into this.
Posted by triangle.128k 2 years ago
triangle.128k
TheMarquis's argument was very weak, you could have gone more in depth.
Posted by reece 2 years ago
reece
I know. I just wanted to add a few things.
Posted by TheMarquis 2 years ago
TheMarquis
@reece I already covered that one, but thanks for the back up.
Posted by reece 2 years ago
reece
...Was at the crime/death scene when it happened...*
Posted by reece 2 years ago
reece
@genesis01 Remember "no body" is at the crime/death scene when investigators look at the evidence. Do you doubt the very core of our own justice system?
No votes have been placed for this debate.