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

Young Earth Creation is a Scientifically probable explanation of the 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: 4/17/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,015 times Debate No: 22914
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




First Round is for acceptance
BOP is shared: I will try to prove that Young Earth Creation (YEC) is a probable theory using the scientific method. My opponent will attempt to prove that YEC is not probable explanation using the scientific method.

According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary (www.merriam– the Scientific Method is:

principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

This debate will not discuss alternate explanations (such as Darwinian Evolution).
(I hope to demonstrate how Evolution is scientifically flawed in a future debate but it would make this debate too vast in scope to adequately cover all the information).

For the purposes of this debate we shall assume Young Earth Creation is described in the Biblical Account. However I believe that there are numerous "flawed" creation accounts such as the Epic of Gilgamesh.

I look forward to an informative and mature debate.


I accept the debate, on the grounds that my opponent shall present no more than ten (10) distinct attempts to justify a young earth. In the words of Einstein: "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!", but I shall allow my opponent ten attempts to prove creationism. This is to stop "gish galloping", that is, an excessive spamming of arguments, in the hope that I shall be unable to answer the vast array of "proofs", and therefore not fulfil my burden.

Also, I look forwards to the lack of the term "evolution" being used following this round.

However, I state the Burden of Proof is not shared. My opponent has the whole burden. I simply have to show that my opponent has not fulfiled his burden of proof, and refute his claims (he says as much in his post). This means I have the burden of rejoiner, and my opponent has the burden of proof. That is, if I do not adequately refute all my opponent's proofs, then my opponent has won the debate.

I wish to expand on the scientific method slightly, in order to give more clarity for those who do not understand it.

"The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory."[1]

Also, of course, no semantic traps i.e. using words in their less known meanings, to exploit and decieve debaters. An example is "public funding to the police should be increased", and referring to "the police" as The Police, a band in the 80s.

In order for my opponent to fulfil his burden of proof, he must show simply that the world most likely existed six thousand years ago, give or take a few minellia. My opponent's argument must not only be valid, but likely as well.

I await my opponent's opening argumentation to the debate.

1 -;

Debate Round No. 1


First I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I trust that he will have no reason to complain of my conduct or I of his, and that we can enjoy a debate which is challenging and inspiring (if not to change our beliefs, at least to consider them more carefully).

I forgot to mention earlier that due to the limitations of this debate I will not try to prove "god" etc. That is a separate debate. The parameters of the debate, as my opponent said are about proving the earth started around 6,000 years ago.

First I would like to clarify that the debate topic here is completely different from trying to prove many other scientific arguments. We shall still use the evidence but it cannot be used the same way.

Let us say that we wanted to prove that ice when heated up would turn into water. It would be easy to show that by a simple experiment.

However historical science is completely different. I am sure my opponent will agree with this point. It is the same whether you are discussing Creation or any other theory.

For example you can't prove that George Washington was president through "science" because his life and presidency are non-repeatable. The same is true with the age of the earth and universe.

Actually this sort of evidence is fairly similar to solving a mystery. Sherlock Holmes (who doesn't love him?) finds one boot on a crime scene, he thinks "aha! I know that the mud on this is from two days ago in the such and such area of london, and so I know who the criminal is". Don't we all wish we were as smart as Sherlock Holmes! The same technique is used here. We look at fossils, for example, and we look at what layer they are in. Then we might say "Oh this fossil is in the pre-cambrian layer thus it is X million years old. The question is whether this method is reliable. We all have the same evidence, but we each interpret it differently based on our worldview.

Finally I would like to state that this debate is critical to a person's understanding of the world. While I will not be dealing with Evolution, or Christianity in this debate it is vital that the reader and voter understand that they are unavoidably tied to this discussion. While this single argument cannot "prove" one or the other, evolution cannot survive without millions (and in some cases billions) of years (at least until a new theory is proposed). Neither can the biblical history be stretched much above 10,000 years. While many have tried to make Christianity fit in millions of years (Day-Age, Gap Theory, Theistic Evolution, et al.) these do not work. The bottom line is the Bible says no death before the Fall (Genesis chp. 3). So we must have one or the other–not both.

In my argument I shall present several clocks. Now, as my opponent said in the comments about not using an semantic traps, or odd meaning of a word to trick the other side, I shall clarify here, so I hope he will forgive me in the understanding that I am not trying to trick him. "Clock" here does not mean that thing on your dresser that tells you to wake up when you'd much rather sleep in. Instead a "clock" is any geophysical or astronomical process that is changing at a constant rate. Clocks may be used to estimate how long a process has been� going� on for.� All clocks (including�radiometric ones) require the use of� at least� three assumptions. These are:
1. The rate of change has remained constant throughout the past.

2. The original conditions are known.
3. The process has not been altered by outside forces.

"Clocks" are used by scientists, whatever their worldview, to determine the age of the earth.

1. Blue stars
All stars get their energy to burn from the fusion of hydrogen deep in their core. But this will eventually burn up (at which point Blue stars turn into Type II and then become a Black Hole, similarly a star like our sun becomes a Red Giant, then a Planetary Nebula, then a white dwarf [1]). Even secular scientists agree that these stars could only last for a "few million years[1]. Since the universe is (necessarily) at least 13 billion years old, my opponent must explain how these stars have been formed (whatever you want to call it) since the beginning of the universe.


2. The Earth's Magnetic Field is decaying too fast to be more than 20,000 years old.
The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (� 165) years. [1]


3. DNA Mutation rates are much too fast. [1]This means that DNA cannot have existed for more that 10,000 years. This is not just in humans but in other creatures such as dinosaurs. [2] [3] [4] [5]


[2] Cherfas, J., Ancient DNA: still busy after death, Science 253:1354–1356 (20
September 1991).

[3] Cano, R. J., H. N. Poinar, N. J. Pieniazek, A. Acra, and G. O. Poinar, Jr. Amplification and sequencing of DNA from a 120-135-million-year-old weevil, Nature 363:536–8 (10 June 1993).

[4] Krings, M., A. Stone, R. W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki, M. Stoneking, and S. P��bo, Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans, Cell 90:19–30 (Jul 11, 1997).

[5] Lindahl, T, Unlocking nature's ancient secrets, Nature 413:358–359 (27 September 2001).

4. Not enough mud has accumulated on the ocean floor. While over 25 billion tons of sediment is deposited in the ocean each year. [1] Only about 1 billion tons are removed. While Plate Teutonic Subduction does remove about 1 billion tons per year [2] there is only about 400 meters of sediment on the ocean floor including shelves. [2]. This amount would take a maximum of 12 million years (not the 3 billion claimed by most secular scientists) to accumulate. A similar problem can be found in relation to sodium levels in the oceans. While 450 million tons of sodium are added each year [3] only 27% gets back out. [4] [5] Even the most generous calculations, figuring much smaller inputs of sodium and much larger outputs can only arrive at 62 million years (of the alleged 3 billion years). [5] Other calculations come to an age much closer to the 10,000 to 6,000 year range. [6]

[1] Gordeyev, V.V. et al, 'The average chemical composition of suspensions in the world's rivers and the supply of sediments to the ocean by streams', Dockl. Akad, Nauk. SSSR 238 (1980), p. 150.

[2] Hay, W.W., et al, 'Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction', Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No. B12 (10 December 1988), pp. 14,933-14,940.

[3] Maybeck, M., 'Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans', Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979), p. 215. (sorry you will have to translate this document but I wanted to provide the original).

[4] Sayles, F.L. and Mangelsdorf, P.C., 'Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater', Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979), p. 767

[5] Austin, S.A. and Humphreys, D.R., 'The sea's missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1990) pp. 17-31. Address in ref. 12.


I have three more arguments to present but I will reserve them for a future round due to running out of space.


I'll address my opponent's argument point for point. Luckily, this won't take too long. I shall firstly ask here that my opponent should double and triple-check his sources from now on, as many of his points seem to be based on misconceptions.

Blue Stars

My opponent's source states that Eta Carinae, not blue stars, have a lifetime of a few million years, which is accurate, given that Eta Carinae is well known for being extremely unstable and a short-lived star for its kind[1]. Most stars surivive for as long as a few hundred million years in this form[2], but even so, a blue star is an incredibly short stage in its life. Also, my opponent states that I necessarily believe that the universe is 13 billion years old. I state this is a strawman to create a dichotomy, so that if the world isn't 13 billion years old, then it is 6000 years old, which my opponent has to prove. Even with this point conceded (which it is not), then my opponent is not proving his case, but actually needs to rebut this for his argument to continue.

Magnetic field of the earth.

I'll be very blunt: my opponent has produced no argument for this, and instead just cited a blatantly bias source. In turn, I'll refer my opponent to the in depth rebuttal of Barnes' "Magnetic Field Argument", which states how the calculations are flawed, the study itself impossible, and the conclusion invalid[3].

DNA Mutations

My opponent needs to rebut his own argument again here: his citation states the average DNA mutation is now thought to be, instead once every 6000 years, once every 1200 possibly. Not certainly, not probably, but only possibly. This is not an argument: this is picking and choosing facts, and my opponent needs to justify why what a minority of scientists thinks is right, rather than avoid defence of the premise.

Ocean Sediment

Again, I feel there is, in fact, little reason to even address this point. It promotes the idea that the earth is at least 62 million years old. My opponent's citation stating the earth is 6000 years old also does not exist: the link is broken. However, the original study by Morris and Parker found the earth to be 260 million years old, even if we disregard the fallacy of their work. I shall quote Cook to conclude this point:

"The validity of the application of total salt in the ocean in the determination of age turned out to have a very simple answer in the fact shown by Goldschmidt (1954) that it is in steady state and therefore useless as a means of determining the age of the oceans."[4]

To conclude my opponent has only made a single argument which comes close to the 6-10 thousand year period he needs to justify his age of the earth, possibly two if he posts a successful link. Almost all the arguments have been fallacious. All the arguments have lacked any real substance to them. I await my opponent to post his final three justifications for a young earth.

1 -
2 -;
3 -;
4 - Cook, M. A. 1966. Prehistory and earth models. Max Parrish & Co., Ltd., London. 353 pp.
Debate Round No. 2


TheApologist forfeited this round.


extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3


TheApologist forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4


TheApologist forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Sorry, I didn't notice your comments until I posted my argument. However, that introduction was completely unnecessary and basically reiterated the meaning of "probable". You should try to make sure the introductions are shorter, because otherwise you've just made claims and citations.
Posted by TheApologist 4 years ago
I am sure you will notice that my arguments are quite brief, this was because I felt like there was some introductory material which needed to be dispensed with first and left me with only half the space for my arguments plus sources. I will flesh them out in the next round. Thanks for understanding.
Posted by TheApologist 4 years ago
Of course, thanks for the clarification.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
I forgot to mention this in the first round: source all arguments, and do not copy/paste full contentions. It is against the spirit of debating.
Posted by TheApologist 4 years ago
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
You should be abe to click "edit debate". In the middle part, under where it says "open debate".
Posted by TheApologist 4 years ago
I am willing to change the debate to trying to prove it as "probable". Is there a way I can edit the title will it work just stating it here.
Posted by Thaumaturgy 4 years ago
The problem with the current construction of the debate is that the "Pro" side has only to prove the _possibility_ that YEC could be an explanation for the history of the earth, while requiring that the opposing side "prove" it cannot be a possible explanation.

This fails for the obvious reason that it is impossible to prove a negative. And the fact that science never deals with absolute proofs but rather preponderance of evidence pointing to a "most likely correct hypothesis".

The "Pro" side seems to have set the bar quite low for itself while providing a nearly insummountable level for the "Con" side.

If this were written more in keeping with _how science actually functions_ it would be more appropriate.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
I don't like arguing that things aren't possible. I'd rather argue that something can be considered false within a reasonable doubt. Not that something can be considered false without the slightest doubt.

If there is a chance of 1 in one million that something is true than it's possible. Change it too probable and I may accept.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF