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

Young Earth Christian Creationism (YEC) is a viable explanation for the origin of our universe.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,622 times Debate No: 68368
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)




== Debate Rules ==
BoP resides on Pro.
Pro should present their argument starting immediately in the first round, and post "no round as agreed" in the fifth, thus alloting each participant the same number of rounds for arguments.
Any and all Biblical passages should refer to the King James version as to avoid confusion.

== Definitions ==
Young Earth Creationism (YEC): the belief that our universe, along with all of its contents, were created around 6000 years ago, from nothing, by the Christian God of the Bible (Yahweh).
Viable: capable of working successfully; feasible.
"Origin of our universe": the origin of the universe itself along with all of its components, including life and the Earth.

Good luck!


I accept,
Debate Round No. 1


== Rule Violation ==
By not posting their argument in the first round as specified in the debate rules, Pro has forfeited one round of debate.

== Case ==

Regarding the Origin of Earth

There are many pieces of scientific evidence that suggest that the Earth is significantly older than 6,000 years. These pieces of evidence render the claim of a Bibilically created Earth invalid. In the following paragraphs, I will list three of such pieces of evidence and explain how they invalidate a young Earth.

Ice core layers
Due to the fact that temperatures in the Antarctic almost never reach above the freezing point of water, ice core samples taken from the Antarctic contain well-preserved information about the environment there in the past, namely temperature data and greenhouse gas concentrations; however, the most relevant and easily distinguishable information is how many annual layers are preserved in that core. [1]
One specific sample shows around 60ka (60000 years) of annual snowfall layers [2]. In order for these layers to have formed in 6,000 years, there would need to be 10 summer/winter cycles every year since the formation of the Earth.

Continental Drift theory
Fossils of the same species of dinosaur/prehistoric organism have been found spanning multiple continents, supporting the idea that all continents were once grouped together into one large supercontinent (Pangaea).
Currently, the Earth's tectonic plates are drifting at a rate of around 1 centimeter per year [3], A tectonic plate movement of 6,000 centimeters is obviously not enough for a connected mass of continents to become the wide array of landmasses that are present today. Also, a sped-up version of plate tectonics, commonly known as 'catastrophic plate tectonics' and created to explain away these problems, has been thoroughly debunked [4].

Petrified forests
Petrification refers to the process of trees or tree-like plants transitioning completely into stone through perminalization [5].

The formation of petrified forests, such as the one pictured above, takes hundreds of thousands if not millions of years [6]. Thus, these forests could not form in a young Earth environment.

== Note ==
In my next round I will specify continuing evidence against YEC regarding the origin of life. I would have preferred to add more to this round, but personal matters and time constraints prevent me from doing so.



Dating methods

Many scientific textbooks and all claim that the earth is between 4.55 and 4.6 billion years old. However, there is a huge gap of 50 million, how is that accurate?

Fossil record and continentional drift.
I would like to point out that you are using fossil records and all as proof for evolution. Historical science and obervational science are DIFFERENT. Historical science is the fossil record, it doesn't speak for itself. People try to find ways to show how fossils prove evolution through millions of years and evolution. A biblical creationist interprets it through thousands of years and the bible.

You don't exactly know what happened to the fossil, it could have been thrown around from the flood. A worldwide flood would have destroyed billions of plants and animals and thrown them around all over the Earth. This is where fossils come from according to biblical creation. If the world was one supercontinent, a worldwide flood could easily explain how the landscape was changed. A flood could easily alter the landscape.

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.

s://; alt="" />

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.

Theistic Evolution

There are many christians who are religious and believe in most of the bible but also try to fit in millions of years and evolution. This is not true to the bible and not true to christianity. Pope francis said that evolution and the big bang are real but this seems to go against christianity.


The bible shows us a written first hand account of the past, evolution is just a guess based on fossils and all.

How Old Is the Earth? | Answers in Genesis
The Fossil Record | Answers in Genesis
Evolution | Answers in Genesis
Evidence Against Evolution | Answers in Genesis
9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False | Humans Are Free
Why Evolution is False
Debate Round No. 2


== Dropped Arguments ==
You have chosen only to attempt to refute one of my arguments, dropping the two regarding ice core layers and petrification. This is an egregious breach of conduct.

== Unreliable/Biased Sources ==

AnswersInGenesis is cited as the majority of your sources. However, due to the clear agenda of this site, the information provided is bound to be extremely biased. In the future, please use more refutable sources.

== Refutations ==
"Is a gap of 50 million years accurate"?
When dealing with any subject in the distant past, there is bound to be a margin of error; however, a margin of error of 50 million years is irrelevant to the debate at hand, since you hold the position that the Earth is 6,000 years old - which would require a margin of error of 4.x billion years.

Historical and Observational Science
The scientific community does not and has never recognized 'historical' and 'observational' sciences as distinct parts of the scientific process. [1]

Global Flood
If it was indeed a global flood that scattered the fossils as they are today, you would not see fossil layers organized in chronological order as they are...

...but a jumbled mess of organisms, with ancient invertebrates mixed right in with modern-day mammals, since a flood would not care for which organisms were the oldest and therefore should be put down first. However, we do not see such mixing of fossils: you will never see a modern monkey fossil mixed in with an ancient tetrapod fossil.

Different Interpretations
While it is true that a scientist would interpret evidence differently from a creationist, that is because creationists must start from their conclusion and work backwards in order to align the evidence with their faith, while scientists adhere to the scientific method.

It is indeed true that we cannot know for sure about things we weren't there to witness. The most we can make is a highly educated guess. This does not invalidate any argument or evidence put forth by science. You cannot know for sure that what you are seeing right now isn't an elaborate computer simulation built by extravagant extraterrestrials, but since there is no evidence for such a thing, we adhere to the most highly educated guess (which is that what we are seeing is real).

Biblical Reliability
There is no evidence for the reliability of the Bible. If you have such evidence, please present it. I could just as easily write a book saying that the sun is actually a giant golden glowing unicorn that shines light throughout all the universe: that doesn't make it true.

The Hourglass
The analogy being made here is completely unfounded. If the hourglass had sand removed or was tampered with, we would see evidence of such tampering through, as you say, a crack in the glass. That crack would be evidence of tampering. However, with the evidence regarding the origin of the universe, there is no evidence of tampering. Who would even be around to tamper with it? If the evidence we find is verifiable, without evidence of tampering, we can safely assume that it is valid.

Evolution does not suggest that life came from non-life. Evolution is the theory of natural selection - of more adapted organisms rising from less adapted organisms in order to further the species. What you are actually referring to is abiogenesis. In laboratory environments, scientists have been able to simulate the environment of early Earth, and what they found is that, given time, amino acids (which are the monomers of proteins) will naturally form (see the Miller-Urey Experiment [2]). Therefore, your claim that abiogenesis does not hold up with science is demonstrably false; this is not to say that abiogenesis has been definitively proven, but it definitely is not invalid.

"There is no observable information in which new information can be added"
This is false. On average, every child born has 60 DNA mutations [3] from the parents. Mutations are new information being added.

Second Law of Thermodynamics
Entropy does not disprove evolution. Entropy is the theory that, over time, the amount of energy in a closed system will decrease. This states nothing about complexity/adaptation of life.

Theistic Evolution
The argument presented is irrelevant to the topic at hand. It matters not who believes in what, but rather, what is true.





genesis01 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I extend all arguments.


genesis01 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


I extend all arguments. Vote Con.


genesis01 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
I'll take this.
Posted by creationtruth 2 years ago
On what grounds are we debating the viability of the YEC view? Scientific? Philosophical? Logical? All of these? None of these?
Posted by christopher1006 2 years ago
You do realise that you can have email notification on this, right?
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
Remind me to vote on this when the time comes, please.
Posted by Mr.Kal 2 years ago
@PhiloTheist - YEC's basic premise is the entire universe was created within those 7 days - including Earth.
Big bang and YEC cannot coexist as the time frame varies nearly 14 billion years.

So there is merit in the argument as who ever is the supporter must prove first and foremost the age of the universe is only 6,000 - 10,000 years old.
Posted by PhiloTheist 2 years ago
The debate premise is somewhat nonsensical. Young Earth Creationism is only a cosmology in a very technical sense. The tenets of the... philosophy, if you will, are far more concerned with the origins of life and how various species came to be than the origins of the universe.
Posted by ColeTrain 2 years ago
Explicit statement, no. Accidentally proving it true, yes.
Posted by recalculated 2 years ago
I would like to point out that at no point in my comment did I admit that the Dead Sea scrolls prove the Bible
Posted by ColeTrain 2 years ago
I don't want to get into a long debate over whether or not the Bible is true, and this will be my final comment on this debate. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the Bible true, as you even admitted. The manuscripts date back to those times, and were, as you said, hidden. As for prophecies, here is a website for you to examine, as listing them out in a comment would be far too lengthy.
As for your claim that the Bible has inconsistencies, I will provide you with a list of how those inconsistencies actually are not contradictory, or inconsistencies at all. (Space does not allow an adequate explanation without the web address)
For your specific instance, that would be found in section 92.
Lastly, I would like to ask you to fully consider and read the Bible with an open mind, and you will find it to be truthful and comforting if you will trust God enough to take control of your life. It has truly worked for me, and I desire you would consider His love for you. :)
Posted by recalculated 2 years ago
From the information I have gathered, the Dead Sea Scrolls are simply copies of the Hebrew Bible canon, presumably hidden there due to attempts to protect them from destruction by persecutors of the Jews, and thus provide no further proof of the Bible's truth. There are plenty of religious manuscripts of widely varying beliefs that have been found.
More specifics about which arguments were refuted by which archaeological studies would help, and the same goes for fulfilled prophecies.
There are many inconsistencies in the Bible, foremost God commanding not to kill in one instance (10 Commandments) and then commanding his followers to "go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and [donkey]" (1 Samuel 15:3 KJV) in the next.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 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 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture