Young Earth Creationism
This debate is technically open to the first person who accepts it; however, if I do not deem you a worthy opponent, I will simply forfeit every round. I'm aware that this carries a huge risk of being sniped by a noob, but I don't care about my statistics on this site anymore.
The resolution is as follows:
Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is a better explanation than Modern Evolutionary Theory.
I'm Pro, and will be arguing in favor of YEC.
The first round is for acceptance only. Clarifications should be requested in the comment section.
In the second round, if I actually proceed with the debate, I will begin a case for YEC.
As much as I'd prefer that this debate assumes neutral truth value for both positions, I've yet to see this happen in practice, so I won't expand on this.
I accept, and look forward to your arguments!
The resolution that I will be negating is that YEC (Young Earth Creationism) is a more viable model than Modern Day Evolution.
Thanks to IntellectualAtheist for accepting my debate. I've received concerns regarding my phrasing of the resolution; in particular, regarding the word “better.” For clarification, (and I trust Con will be fine with this) the resolution is that “Young Earth Creationism is a better explanation for the evidence then Modern Evolutionary Theory.”
I'm not good with phrasing resolutions. Anyways, let's begin!
Why Have We Not Died 100 Times Over?
A paradox for Evolution, but not YEC
A person's genome suffers a loss of genetic information every generation.(1) This is consistent with the YEC model, which posits that life has been degrading since the posited Fall of Man.
According to Modern Evolutionary Theory, the human race has existed for ~200,000 years.(2) Within this time frame, and at the current rate of genetic degradation, humans would have gone extinct over 100 times!(3)
This paradox is a problem for Modern Evolutionary Theory because the theory posits such a massive time frame of human existence. It is not a problem for YEC, however, because it only posits a time frame of ~6,000 years.
Therefore, this rate of genetic degradation is consistent with YEC, but not Modern Evolutionary Theory.
An oxymoronic explanation from Evolution, but not YEC
The embedded video is that of an Ostracod (which I had the pleasure of recording myself).
That creature is the most common arthropod found fossilized, by far. In 2010, a fossilized Ostracod was found in the Cambrian layer.(4) It was fossilized exceptionally well, and almost idential to living Ostracods. According to Modern Evolutionary Theory, this means that while fish were changing into land mammals, and lizards were changing into birds, Ostracods were not changing into anything... for over 400 million years!
This is not consistent with the most basic definition of Evolution: “change over time.” Modern Evolutionary Theory uses the label “Evolutionary Stasis” to explain the phenomenon of the Ostracod, but this makes no sense: “Evolutionary Stasis” is an oxymoron; “stasis” means “no change.”
This means that the explanation for the Ostracod finding posited by Modern Evolutionary Theory makes no sense. However, YEC has no problem explaining this particular piece of evidence: According to YEC, all animals bring forth after their own kind, and do not change into different kinds of animals over time. So no matter how many generations of Ostracods have passed since that Cambrian Ostracod was fossilized, YEC expects that its descendents will still be recognizable as Ostracods. And this is exactly what the evidence demonstrates.
Before I hand it over to Con, I'd like to give credit to the user Muted. I first learned of these arguments from his debates.
(1) Sanford, John C. (2008). Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome.
(3) J Theor Biol. 1995 Aug 21;175(4):583-94. Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? Kondrashov AS.
(4) Proc Biol Sci. 2010 May 22; 277(1687): 1539–1544. An exceptionally preserved myodocopid ostracod from the Silurian of Herefordshire, UK. David J. Siveter, et. al.
In the fossil record: There are snapshots from the past in which, if arranged from oldest to earliest, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change overtime. The snapshots may be scattered in places and have bits missing, but that which we are left with clearly supports the claim that we originated from different animals, evolving overtime.
Similarities between humans and related living organisms
During and since Darwin was born, people have been studying animals. Scientists, lately, have been discovering that we humans share DNA with others as our former selves (Or at least some)(Monkeys).
I await my opponent's set of arguments.
Before rebutting your arguments, I'd like to officially declare your resolution phrase accepted in this debate.
"According to Modern Evolutionary Theory, the human race has existed for ~200,000 years.(2) Within this time frame, and at the current rate of genetic degradation, humans would have gone extinct over 100 times!(3)
This paradox is a problem for Modern Evolutionary Theory because the theory posits such a massive time frame of human existence. It is not a problem for YEC, however, because it only posits a time frame of ~6,000 years."If we assume both theories were true, a contradiction entails, seeing as, according to the Modern Evolutionary Theory, we originated as a different animal (In other words, we were amongst one of many OTHER kinds of species), evolving overtime into what we are now, while according to YEC (Young Earth Creationism), a monotheistic God (Whether that would be the Christian God, E.T.C) created us. Not only that, but, according to MET (Modern Evolutionary Theory (Abbreviation)), we humans have existed for 200,000 years, while according to YEC, we existed for 6,000 years. So, therefore, to conclude from that, it IS a problem for YEC.
(Apologies. I'm a pedant) A theory doesn't posit anything; It is an inanimate noun.
Also, so what if the people who developed MET posit such a LONG time frame? You have never really explained that.
"That creature is the most common arthropod found fossilized, by far. In 2010, a fossilized Ostracod was found in the Cambrian layer.(4) It was fossilized exceptionally well, and almost idential to living Ostracods. According to Modern Evolutionary Theory, this means that while fish were changing into land mammals, and lizards were changing into birds, Ostracods were not changing into anything... for over 400 million years!
This is not consistent with the most basic definition of Evolution: “change over time.” Modern Evolutionary Theory uses the label “Evolutionary Stasis” to explain the phenomenon of the Ostracod, but this makes no sense: “Evolutionary Stasis” is an oxymoron; “stasis” means “no change.”"
Yes, indeed; A contradiction entails because evolution is defined as "Change overtime", while stasis is defined as "no change". However, this now, is based on observation; If we observe, and realize that Ostracods don't evolve overtime into us, then that would be stasis. However, that isn't evidence to support the claim that YEC is a more viable model than MET. How so?
Those who have developed Evolution NEVER proclamed that ALL DIFFERENT KINDS OF SPECIES (Other than humans) evolve overtime into us.
Rebuttal to: Fossil Evidence
My opponent says that the fossil evidence “clearly supports the claim that we originated from different animals, evolving overtime.”
This claim has already been debunked by the Ostracod finding. It clearly contradicts the claim that animals evolve over time.
However, the fossil evidence fits perfectly under the YEC model. According to Genesis 7:11,
“( …) all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.”
If Noah's Flood were a real event, we would expect the smaller sea creatures to be buried first by these “fountains of the great deep.” Indeed, we find the smaller fossils in the deeper layers of the earth. I'll quote Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., since he explains it perfectly:
“Water plants would generally be buried before coastal and mountain plants. Land creatures would be buried last, especially the mammals and birds that could escape to higher ground. The more intelligent creatures would find a way to escape until the very end, leaving their bodies nearer the surface, where post-Flood erosion would destroy most evidence of their existence. Humans would have been most resilient of all, clinging to debris and rafts, before they died of exposure; their floating bodies would have made easy meals for scavenging fish, so would not have fossilized as readily.”(5)
The fossil record is more consistent with these predictions of YEC that those of Modern Evolutionary Theory.
Rebuttal to: Similiarities [sic] Between Humans And Related Living Organisms
I've already refuted the notion that Humans are related to any other organism, muchless any other living organism. So the assumption behind this title fails to start with.
Con claims that “humans share DNA with others as our former selves (Or at least some)(Monkeys).” This argument fails because it relies on a premise that I've already debunked: that humans evolved from other animals. That is, if I understand the intention behind the argument correctly. Taken literally, it would seem that my opponent is making an argument for reincarnation, which is not an aspect of Modern Evolutionary Theory (to my knowledge).
Rebuttal to Con's Rebuttal of: Why Have We Not Died 100 Times Over?
Con concludes that the paradox I presented “IS a problem for YEC.” I humbly ask that my opponent restate his argument, because I cannot follow the logic that led to his conclusion.
He also says, “so what if the people who developed MET posit such a LONG time frame? You have never really explained that.” I beg to differ! I explained that it causes a paradox within Modern Evolutionary Theory, for at the current rate of genetic degradation, humans would have gone extinct in far less than 200,000 years. It's a paradox because, well, we are not extinct!
I will now address Con's admitted pedantry. He says that a theory is an inanimate noun, and so can't “posit” anything. However, A quick Google search reveals many articles, written by professionals, saying that theories “posit” things. Here is just one example:
“Expectancy theory posits that individuals choose among a set of behavioral alternatives on the basis of the motivational force of each alternative.”(6)
Con's concern is unfounded.
Rebuttal to Con's Rebuttal of: Ostracods
Right away, my opponent admits that “Evolutionary Stasis” is a contradiction. But he then tries to justify this contradiction by saying it's “based on observation.” That simply does not suffice.
Con then asks me how the Ostracod finding better supports YEC than his position, but I already explained how in the previous round. I will not do so here.
All my arguments stand. Back to you, Con.
Darn, I was so close to winning a YEC debate. It would have been the 2nd in the history of debate.org to be won without a forfeit.
All arguments extended.
By the way Con, you should write your arguments in a word processor and save them because debate.org is unreliable. I know, it sucks, it's happened to me. But just a tip for next time.
IntellectualAtheist forfeited this round.
|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:||5||1|