The validity of evolution over young Earth creationism.
Debate Rounds (3)
genesis01 forfeited this round.
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).
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 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 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.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.