Young Earth Creationism is Supported by Scientific Evidence.
Debate Rounds (4)
Young Earth Creationism- the belief that all life on Earth was created by God in distinct forms less than ten thousand years ago, and that the Earth and universe were also created less than ten thousand years ago.
Pro may begin his argument in the first round. No new arguments may be made in the final round. The BOP is on pro. Good luck!
I am not a creationist, nor an intelligent design-ist. I accept the scientific evidence for geology, evolution, chemistry, radiation, astronomy, the fossil record, biology, and the historical record as being, to the best of our current understanding and knowledge, as proof that life on this planet and the universe itself are billions of years old. But, is Young Earth Creationism supported by scientific evidence? YES. Is Young Earth Creationism PROVEN by scientific evidence? NO.
I can now go on and on citing lots of evidence that supports young earth creationism. Ten seconds on Google resulted in this:
However, in almost all cases, the "support" has not been proven, nor established, nor regarded by the mainstream scientific or historical community as acceptable evidence. Most of the "support" for young earth creationism is just bad science, like "God of the gaps" reasoning, scholars commenting on fields that they are not experts in (a physics professor discussing the evolution of the eye), researchers who have already made up their minds (believe the earth to be 10,000 years old then go looking for evidence) and disregard evidence that doesn't support their hypothesis, or researchers who rightly do attack the evidence but do so for misguided reasons. A lot of pro "mainstream" Young Earth believers consists of those with incredulity and lack of knowledge, "I can't understand how it works so therefore it must have been impossible/require a supernatural agency." "I have no idea how to move a stone block weighing several tons, therefore it would be impossible for the ancient Egyptians to do so, therefore aliens must have made the pyramids."
I believe my opponent and I will both agree that the majority of "support" for young-Earth creationism is bunk and pseudo-science. But is there support for it? Yes, there is. Is it "good" support? No, it isn't.
The only thing left to debate now is for my opponent to say that there is no "support" but unfortunately he would be wrong. There's lots of support, it's just a lot of rubbish. Unless my opponent wants to take the side that the support is indeed evidence and proof, unless he wants to start debating that the Earth is indeed 10,000 years old, I think this debate is over. I would advise him to forfeit and start a new debate with a stronger opening statement.
And yeah, I know I'm nitpicking my opponent's unfortunate use of the word "support." But, in a written debate like this, grammar and vocabulary are important. I believe I know what he intended to say, but what he intended, and what he actually wrote, is not the same.
Pro seems to be under the impression that he can cite evidence that is poorly and unscientifically gathered that supports young earth creationism (YEC). However, the resolution speaks specifically of scientific evidence. As it is scientific, it must be legitimately obtained as a result of the exercise of the scientific method, be based on valid scientific proceedings, and be published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, as pro has admitted "the 'support' for young earth creationism is just bad science," I think it is he who will have a tough time this debate.
In order to prove the resolution, pro must provide valid scientific evidence that supports YEC. Posting URLs on the screen doesn't qualify. Pro must present the evidence and justify it, and I will debunk it the next round.
Pro has not actually provided any evidence. One cannot make an argument merely by posting sources. Until pro actually provides evidence, I have won, as he unambiguously has the burden of proof.
Good luck to pro.
I'm sure I could probably find some research papers dealing with thermodynamics or explanations about why the universe is 6000 years old but starlight from suns billions of light years away can be seen, or why radiocarbon dating is wrong..... but I think we would both agree that such theories are "bad" science. Also, unless someone in the comments can find it, I will concede that scientific evidence for creationism is not published in peer-reviewed journals. I recall one controversy a few years ago and wouldn't be surprised if there were more, but after being peer-reviewed the theory or theories were discredited. I'm just too lazy to actually find the example.
To make a long story longer, is YEC supported by evidence? Yes it is. That evidence is called the bible. Is it supported by "good" SCIENTIFIC evidence? No, it is not.
I concede to you good sir! I will now forfeit any additional rounds.
AMERICA!!!!!! Canada's cool too.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||2|
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
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.