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

Young Earth Creationism is negated by much of modern science, not just the theory of evolution.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,592 times Debate No: 62210
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (1)




In this debate, I will argue that Young Earth Creationism conflicts with much of modern science, not just the theory of evolution. As such, it is an untenable position.

My opponent will defend that this is not the case either by demonstrating how much of modern science is in agreement with the YEC worldview or by refuting my claims (or both).

To keep the debate short and sweet, I have set argument max to 5,000 characters with a 48 hour response time. Please ensure you are available enough to avoid forfeit. Remember that others might have wanted to take on the debate.

1st round = Acceptance.
2nd round = Opening statements (no rebbutals).
3rd round = Rebuttals.
4th round = Final rebuttals and closing statements.

-no name calling
-arguments should be organised into coherent paragraphs for clarity.
-correct spelling should be used as much as possible.
-statements should be backed by sources.
-please make time for the debate.


I'm new to this website so forgive my decorum.

My stance will be towards creationism in general because young earth/old earth is a tangent.

I may invoke biblical scriptures as creationism is rooted in scripture as correlation not causation (I will use scientific examples).

I will attempt to prove Darwinian evolution as false.

When you say "Much of Modern Science" are you referring to: amount of scientists, greater or lesser value within certain fields of science, current perceptions, or which relevant fields of science (astronomy or biology), as pertaining to creationism.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you smarken41 for accepting this debate. However, I would like to clarify a number of important details from the outset. The proposition being debated is "Young Earth Creationism is negated by much of modern science, not just the theory of evolution". This is the debate you have accepted. I will fulfill my burden of proof (BoP) for this proposition and this proposition alone. This debate is specifically about Young Earth Creationism (YEC). To fulfil my BoP I also do not need to refer to the theory of evolution, the point of the proposition being that YEC is at odds with much of modern science, even without referring to evolution. You are of course welcome to mention both Old Earth Creationism and the theory of evolution if you deem that they can advance your side in the debate.

I will now make my opening statement.

Young Earth Creationism has been pitted against the theory of evolution on countless occasions, often with the assumption being made by YEC advocates that undermining the theory of evolution would seriously strengthen, if not vindicate, the YEC worldview. While it is true that the theory of evolution and YEC cannot both be correct at the same time, it is also true that much of modern science and YEC cannot be correct at the same time either. While the theory of evolution negates YEC, it is not the only theory that does so. I will review a number of scientific conclusions from across the spectrum of modern science which put the lie to YEC. To clarify, when referring to modern science, I am going with the widely accepted definition of science as adhering to the scientific method. Here is one possible definition of the scientific method:

"mathematical and experimental techniques employed in the natural sciences; more specifically, techniques used in the construction and testing of scientific hypotheses." [1]

Radiometric dating and geology

Modern science places the age of the Earth at 4.54 billion years old with a margin of error of 0.05 billion years. This age estimate is based on the radiometric dating of both the solar system's meteorites, lunar samples and Earth samples. [2] Radiometric dating relies on radioactive decay. Each radioactive isotope has a specific half-life, that is "The time required, probabilistically, for half of the unstable, radioactive atoms in a sample to undergo radioactive decay." [3] When studying rocks, we are able to determine the age at which these rocks formed by looking at the quantities of two isotopes, one the unstable radioactive isotope and the other the product of radioactive decay, and comparing these value to the radioactive isotopes' half life. Many natural occuring radioactive isotopes overlap and have a half-life long enough for measurements in billions of years. [4]

The established age of the earth does not fit with the 6000 years old Earth proned by YEC by several orders of magnitude.

The first humans can equally be traced back past 6000 years. if we consider the Homo genus, Homo Habilis was the first species to take on a recognisably human form. Radiometric dating attests to the existence of the species around 2 million years ago. [5] An unncesseraly stringent definition of "human", which would limit humanity to merely Homo Sapiens, would still put the dawn of man at around 500 thousand years (200 thousand years if we limit the definition to homo Sapiens anatomically equivalent to contemporary man). [5][6]

Again, the age of the Homo genus cannot be reconciled with YEC.

<a href=; />

Many geological phenomena could not have taken place in the short periods of time posited by YEC. Given the slow process of continental drift for example, the continent could not have possibly formed one massive continent as the presence of identical fossils on different continents attest (and more casually, the shape of continents).


YEC posits that the Earth began existing shortly after the creation of the universe. According to modern scientific accounts however, the universe existed almost 10 billion years before the Earth was formed. [7] With light travelling at a finite speed we are able to peer back into the past and observe stars and galaxies millions of years old. This year saw the observation of a star estimated to be as old as 13.6 billion years old. [8]

This is merely an overview of the legacy of modern science YEC has to contend with. It should be clear at this point that evolution need not enter the debate for YEC to be thouroughly debunked.

[4] (under header radiometri clocks)


As science advances the fact of creation becomes more and more apparent. This is why modern scientific examples are needed as we throw comfortable science out. Evolution is an example of comfortable science. Although I may seem comforting to think of a slow evolution of species from one species to the next species with transitional fossils serving as markers between species, neither has had evidence to substantiate. This belief in evolution must end. I will start with Biology.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Anything that represents machinery represents a designer and not random chance. The flagellum rotor.1

Animals formed whole
Fish in the cambrian automatically develop a gut, and fish specific muscles which has not existed before and confirmed between two independent research groups.2

3Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

Still finches. Adaptation not evolution. Now young earth creation.


Anisotropic Synchrony Convention
Now although the speed of light is constant however set in one direction physicists contend by convention that light travels faster towards objects than away and by faster much faster maybe infinite.

Basically time there is faster than time back while the speed of light hasn't changed. 4

This suggests that lights traveling from dying stars can arrive the moment it occurs.


Comets can never last more than 10,000 years ever,ever. Now the evolutionist would assume then that comets can be replenishes to give way to the notion that the universe is billions of years old. The Oort clouds are the current speculative theory. However no such evidence exists5. Giving rise to a young earth ~6000 years.

Earths Magnetic Field Decay

The earths magnetic field is decaying. Now the dipole reversal pattern is erratic and not conclusive to the idea that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. If the earth was 4.5 billion years old like the evolutionist suggest the earth would have no magnetic field by now.6

Blue Stars
Blue Stars do not live for billions of years let alone 4.5 billion. We have never seen a star form. star forming regions are just clusters of blue stars.


Biomaterials that ar fossilized must not be millions of years old let alone billions of years old otherwise they would be non-existant, any fossilized DNA recovered can never be more than 10000 years old.7

Science is catching up with religion.

Entertainment value (food for thought):

Sources: 1-
Genesis 1:24
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you Smarken41 for your opening statement. It is almost impossible for YEC proponents not to advance mostly arguments against the theory of evolution (ToE), as con has. As I have said in my opening statement, the debate is often made to appear to be a strict dichotomy between the ToE and YEC. Although there is some creationist literature out there on other subject apart from evolution, these are few and far between.

Con presents a quote from Darwin that comes up often in debates. Irreducible complexity is a good concept and it's not surprising to find that, short of giving it a name, it was Darwin himself who first thought of it, not YECs.

However, the flagellum rotor has been thouroughly debunked as an example of irreducible complexity. In the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, Prof. Miller points out that 10 of the disctinct 50 parts of the flagellum constitute the type III secretory apparatus, which in another context "allows gram negative bacteria to translocate proteins directly into the cytoplasm of a host cell". [1] This alone completely dismantles the claim that the flagellum is irreducible. For further evidence of the claim's falsehood, a paper points to homologies between proteins in the flagellum and proteins with other uses in bacteria. [2]

Con's argument "animals formed whole" is based on a misleading source. It is not clear from con's asserion whether he understands the essence of the argument made by the ICR and perhaps he can clarify. It is clear that there is a misunderstanding of the times involved in the Cambrian explosion. While the Cambrian explosion is quick in geological time, it still refers to "70 or 80 million years" [3] Con's assertion that "fish in the cambrian automatically developed a gut" is misleading.

Con quotes the Bible then shows an illustration of Darwin's finches. This does not validate the Biblical claim or invalidate the ToE. Con commits the fallacy of incomplete evidence by presenting only finches.

Con moves on from arguments against the ToE to physics arguments supposedly in favor of YEC. Yet, these fail in two respects. The first is that they do little to support YEC. Placing a time limit on phenomena means that they could be worked into the YEC worldview, but it hardly makes them arguments in favor of YEC. The second is that they are wrong as dubiously sourced.

Con's argument from astronomy "anisotropic synchrony convention" is based on a source that does not back his assertion at all. The source discusses a subtlety of the theory of relativity which frankly is quite beyond both of us.

Con makes assertions that contradict modern physics. The speed of light is an upper limit on the speed at which a masless particle can travel. [4] Light can travel below the speed of light, but not beyond it. The perfectly symmetrical graph certainly does not show that light travels at different speeds depending on its direction relative to an observer. If light could travel to us the moment a star died, we would have died many times over from supernova explosions and the sky would be all white.

Con places an upper limit on the age of comets using a source that at no point whatsoever discusses the age of comets. Furthermore, this source and the previous source are both found on discussion boards. Con appears to believe his opponents will not check his sources.

Con goes on to make arguments based on sources that don't hold up his arguments. On the Earth's magnetic field decay, con conveniently ignores his source makes statements like "The last time the field lines kinked into a dipole reversal was 780,000 years ago." [5] Con does not seem to grasp that the weakening of the magnetic field is what leads to a dipole reversal and that the magnetic poles on Earth have shifted many times as a consequence.

Con gives no source when making the assertion that blue stars do not live billions of years.

Finally, con uses another questionable ICR source to back his argument that biomaterials cannot be more than 10,000 years old. The ICR use a source from Nature which in full reads: "Unusually good preservation conditions [...] have produced the oldest record for DNA so far. This was the magnolia leaf between 17 and 20 million years old. [...] This means these compression fossils defy the predictions, from in vitro estimates of the rate of spontaneous hydrolisis, that no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years" [6] What has been called into question is the conclusions from spontaneous hydrolisis and not the age of discoveries where biomaterials are found. The ICR wilfully misrepresent their sources, as con has multiple times.

[2] [see table 1]


I have to say I am not surprised in the outcome of this debate and the perception of the Instigator to have a debate that focuses on Young Earth Creation (YEC) and still mention “not just evolution”. When addressing not only evidence against evolution but evidence in favor of Y.E.C he has completely glossed over the main points of YEC let alone his own evidence.

First point of fact Irreducible Complexity was invoked to use against me when I never mention it in my debate so that charge against me vaporizes. My opponent contends that in his evidence of the nature article is just a speculation as how to set an experiment to prove the origins of bacterial flagellum and me know when they do. The nest point of a type III secretory protein being transferred to the host cell, well no kidding bacteria transfer proteins for replications and division all the time, it is basic biology let alone groundbreaking. Side note, 80% of the proteins are non transferable in at most an experimental concept.

Just so the instigator is aware in his arguments Darwin's finches was used a definitive proof of evolution. Read quote #3 [1}

Transitioning to physics it is solid evidence the Instigator did not simply understand the ramifications of what these conventions imply. To illustrate this point I will ask my opponent to simply describe to me what is the speed of the one way direction of light. Meanwhile since I have illustrated that the point is still at the convention stage the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention. The graph clearly shows the symmetry yes, which is a correlation not a causation however the return speed would be much slower this graph also shows Einstiens' Synchrony Convention, which both are still in line with special relativity.

Blue Stars as in the evidence to support them and the source provided, you could have potentially built a case around this but glossed over it, not exclusively but I would have been interested to see where you went with it. If my opponent cross-referenced this it would have been and interesting point.

As to magnetic dipole field reversal pattern is erratic and unreliable to use for the case of the age of the earth simple fact not 780,000 years ago (consensus). The point the Instigator is making when he says ”we would have died many times over from supernova explosions and the sky would be all white”. Technically its just a pulse of light that happens at extreme distances and were shielded by the magnetic field. If our magnetic field can protect use from radiation of the sun which in the grand scheme of things is not very far away well........

Ill save the rest for next round.

Debate Round No. 3


I will briefly address con's response, then move on to concluding remarks. Generally I feel that con has not adequately offered rebuttals to the points I made in my opening statement, focusing rather on counter-rebuttals to my rebuttals. Furthermore, even these counter-rebuttals fall short of adding anything substantial to con's position.

Con points out that his opening argument is not about irreducible complexity. Indeed, upon further review, con seems to be arguing instead that the machine-like properties of various cellular biological mechanisms make them the work of a designer. The use of the flagellum rotor and the video explicitly referring to irreducible complexity threw me off, but the point is taken. However, this argument is noticeably even weaker than irreducible complexity would have been and con can be accused of committing the false analogy fallacy. The metaphor often used to describe complex biological processes, as parts of an elaborate machinery, is extended beyond its purpose. Biological processes appear machine-like in their complexity, but are not machines in actual fact, particularly when the definition one chooses for machine necessitates a human designer. An analogy can be useful to motivate a way of thinking about something, but actual scientific evidence is necessary to safely reach a particular scientific conclusion.

Con provides rebuttals to the rebuttal I originally made for the bacterial flagellum, but clearly neither understands the sources I provide (the
Nature paper does not present mere speculations [1]) nor some of my arguments (I was not arguing that a type III secretory protein was being transferred to a host cell, I was arguing that this structure is found whole in part of the bacterial flagellum, defeating claims of irreducible complexity).

The argument con derives from Darwin's finches still suffer from the fallacy of incomplete evidence despite the argument being updated. By focusing solely on finches, con is wilfully ommiting evidence for speciation that occur over longer periods of time and lead to related, but distinct species which cannot reproduce (or can only produce sterile offspring [2]).

Con asks of me that I describe "the speed of the one way direction of light". I freely admit I do not know what this is. What I do know is that my opponent is trying to justify some point using a forum discussion as his source. From the little that I have gathered, the source does not back up his claims. His claims quite clearly violate established physics as he postulates the existence of light travelling faster than the speed of light. Con is welcome to lay out clearly how his claims are borne out of his source so I can understand the supposed "ramifications".

A source for the blue stars still has not been given. Con revisits his argument on the Earth's magnetic field. Con seems to imply that the magnetic field is unreliable in estimating the age of the Earth. That is perhaps true, but this was never a position I advanced. I merely offered a counter to the claim that the decay of the magnetic field was evidence for a young Earth by pointing to the same source.

I will now conclude.

The ToE really is not necessary to negate YEC given all the modern science that testify to the universe's old age. Science gives us evidence for a dawn of the universe, Earth or Man older by orders of magnitude to YEC's 6 000 years estimation. We are constantly reminded of the age of such things as modern science makes increasingly precise measurements. Not to long ago this year, the age of the universe was placed at 13.82 billion years by the Planck satellite from its previous estimation of 13.73 by the WMAP satellite. It is important to note that Planck's prediction fit into WMAP's error margins and that future age estimations can fall anywhere within Planck's smaller margin. [3] At any rate, we are dramatically far from 6000 years. Radiometric dating lets us make all sorts of measurements in geology, from a lower limit to the age of the Earth to the age of strata and the fossil they contain. Radiometric decay is not only determined for one isotope, but many, allowing a cross-check of different dating methods against each other. These cross-checked methods can then be used to date strata and fossils to millions of years in the past. To hold on to a view such as YEC is not only to dispute the ToE, but also the entire modern scientific enterprise. This is true whether proponents of YEC fully realise this or not. I rest my case, YEC is negated by much of modern science, not just the ToE.



I feel great I took place in this debate, both as a debater and to my opponent. I enjoy the fact that my opponent point out in his second paragraph that "The metaphor often used to describe complex biological processes, as parts of an elaborate machinery, is extended beyond its purpose." Well thank you very much, I enjoyed my evidence as well.

As per Darwins' finches I can only give so many examples of a creation (designer), and the fact that Darwin drawn as evidence gives credence to its substantiation. If the instigator had clarified, sorry quantified this in the the topic in my clarification ergo dogs, porpoises, felines yes even fish and reptiles all bring forth unto their kind and differences in appearances is merely adaptation not evolution. The error falls onto the Instigator.

I have provided substantive evidence for Y.E.C and as I insinuated the Instigator has glossed over the evidence and presented little rebuttal to my evidence. As such a fulfilled debate is on once again on the burden of the Instigator. In the Nature source the introduction of the source is "we explore the arguments in favor of viewing bacterial flagella as evolved." and "speculate as to how an experimental program focused on this topic might look". Please do not accuse me of speculation when the source you are using is speculation especially if it is in the Nature Review section.

Simply looking up blue stars revels there age I trusted since you used Wikipedia for sources a ten minute research would reveal they are not billions of years old.

Speaking about fallacies that you have so steadfastly accused me of during the course of this debate. who is the one who is introducing new evidence that hasn't existed before into your closing statement?

I wish my opponent continued success in discovering and yes even uncovering the mysteries of Gods' creation and can come to accept Jesus as his personal savior just as many scientists have done before and after the secularist corruption of science and discovery. I conclude my evidence to be substantial and my opponents to be riddled with error based on the evidence I presented and cases I have made with the rebuttals I have received from my opponent. This has led my to know the earth and its distributed inhabitants to be from a Young Earth Creation.
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MykSkodar 3 years ago
Your RDF seems fair, except on the speed of light thing. I didn't only complain about the source being a forum topic discussion (I'll avoid that in the future), I also pointed out that his ideas didn't naturally follow from the source. There was no mention of the so-called "one way speed of light" or anything of the sort. If you understood the source and can tell me how smarken41 went from A to B, I'd like to hear it, because I couldn't see it.

Granted, I should have been less conservative with sources in the first round.
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
If either of you have questions on my RFD, feel free to ask. I did attempt to make it incredibly thorough, addressing each sub-topic in the debate.
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
RFD 1:
Con made a meager attempt to proselytize which is out of place on this media.

Spelling and Grammar:
Con made several unintelligible statements such as, "My opponent contends that in his evidence of the nature article is just a speculation as how to set an experiment to prove the origins of bacterial flagellum and me know when they do."

Convincing arguments:
-Pro made a convincing argument for radiometric dating of fossils which Con failed to address. This is the major reason for my decision, because Con never made any claims that well support the position of Con.
-Pro made assertions about geology in round 1 without any supporting evidence. It's no wonder Con didn't address it. Con didn't need to refute this claim.
-Pro claimed that light must take a long time to get from stars, but Con gave us reason to believe it does not. Pro attacked Con's source (being a forum) instead of the argument presented in Con's source. This is a fallacy. Pro made unsupported claims about what would happen if light traveled instantly (sky being white, etc), but these claims don't make sense to me and weren't explained by Pro. Con effectively refuted this claim.
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
RFD 2:
-Con claimed that the flagellar motor must be designed, and used a quote by Darwin, but Pro showed that the motor is genetically similar to other parts of bacteria DNA, thus it might have arisen without design. Con didn't address Pro's argument, because Pro used different terminology that accurately describes Con's argument. We should tackle ideas, not argue over the user of terms. Honestly, neither one made a convincing argument. I agree with Pro that ID would have been a stronger argument here if Con had used it and explicitly given the scientific reasoning behind it.
-Con claimed that fish gained a gut instantaneously, but Pro argued that the Cambrian took place over millions of years, providing enough time for evolution to take place according to the ToE.
-Con claimed that comets can't be more than 10,000 years old but failed to provide reason to believe this claim is true. I'm left wondering why this claim was made.
-Con claimed that finches only spawned other finches. This was an original claim, not a rebuttal to Pro. This is an extremely weak argument, because it deals only with finches, not the ToE as a whole. It is a strawman argument.
-Con started the conversation on the earth's magnetic field weakening. Pro showed that the magnetic field has reversed in the life time of the Earth as related to the strength of the magnetic field. Con forgot that the earth's magnetic field was evidence for a young earth and dropped the ball by ending that sub-topic of the debate by stating that it isn't evidence for an old earth (it never was).
-Con claimed that blue stars can't be old, but didn't argue that they aren't still forming. This argument is really weak to begin with. To make matters worse for Con, there is no source used to back up this claim.
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
I haven't read the comments since my last comment. I'll refrain from reading them until after I've voted on the debate, which I plan to do after I find time to read it.
Posted by MykSkodar 3 years ago
You're absolutely right, I'll let the voters make the points.
Posted by smarken41 3 years ago
Thank you but the debate is over

Let it go

Be more democratic and let the voters decide

Posting in the comment section after the debate is finished makes it appear as if your fishing for votes.
Posted by MykSkodar 3 years ago
smarken41, a little advise for a future debates: If you advance an argument, particularly one that pertains to a fact rather than a reasoning, the onus is on you, not me, to provide a source to back that argument up. What is claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. So while it is true that I could have looked up your claim about blue stars and retorted that the most massive stars are still typically expected to have a lifespan of millions of years (, I in fact didn't need to as you made a statement, which until properly backed, is unfounded.

Reliable sources is something that debators will be judged on, so it's something important to keep in mind going forward.

Glad we had this debate however, good luck with future debates!
Posted by MykSkodar 3 years ago
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
A perfect example of a little mind's response.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jellon 3 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Providing RFD in comments.