The Instigator
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
IntellectualAtheist
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Young Earth Creationism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
GarretKadeDupre
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 573 times Debate No: 45529
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

GarretKadeDupre

Pro

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.

IntellectualAtheist

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 1
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

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.

Ostracods

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.

(2) http://www.sciencedirect.com...

(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.

IntellectualAtheist

Con


Presentations

Fossil evidence


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)[1].

I await my opponent's set of arguments.

Rebuttals

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.

Sources


[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com......


Debate Round No. 2
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

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!

Pedantry

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.


(5) http://creation.com...

(6) http://www.uri.edu...

IntellectualAtheist

Con

Apologies. I, for now, will inactivate my account; Preparing for a test. Not only that, BUT I PUT SO MUCH EFFORT; I ENTERED AN ARGUMENT! A VERY, VERY LONG ONE! AND THEN WHEN I PRESSED THE "REVIEW" BUTTON, IT ERASED IT ALL. IT TOLD ME TO ENTER AN ARGUMENT; ARE YOU KIDDING!? I ENTER SUCH A LONG ARGUMENT, AND YOU DON'T EVEN DETECT A LETTER!? SO CRAPPY!
Debate Round No. 3
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

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

Con

IntellectualAtheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Sorry I'm caught up in a debate about the age of the earth atm, maybe later.
Posted by Babylon_Drifter 2 years ago
Babylon_Drifter
If GarretKadeDupre would be interested in having an at length debate with me on this subject, I'd be more than interested.
Posted by badbob 2 years ago
badbob
Pro clearly won the debate in my opinion. Also cons links did not open for me. The only reason I did not vote was because of the forfeit. Con was schooled in this deabte from the opening bell. He was foreman all over Frazier!
Posted by Babylon_Drifter 2 years ago
Babylon_Drifter
I am merely criticizing that your premise, so far, doesn't support YEC. Even the information you've used is incorrect.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Babylon_Drifter, your remarks would apply only if I had the sole burden of proof. However, both I and my opponent share it in this debate.
Posted by Babylon_Drifter 2 years ago
Babylon_Drifter
I don't see how any of this proves Young Earth Creationism. The idea behind YEC is that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and none of the original poster's claims provides any evidence to this. Even if you were to grant that both of Garret's two points were correct, it doesn't bring him any closer to supporting his position. Honestly, he should be bringing up evidence that supports a younger age to the Earth instead of mentioning that some organisms might be younger in their origin.

1) Beyond you mentioning a book, I don't see any evidence supporting a "a loss of genetic information every generation" and to me, it really makes an assumption that the "current rate" has always been a static rate too. How do we know this for sure? And if such a thing is correct universally, then shouldn't we notice that organisms with fast reproductive cycles going extinct?

Secondly, the claim, "A person's genome suffers a loss of genetic information every generation...within this time frame, and at the current rate of genetic degradation, humans would have gone extinct over 100 times!" So understanding the jist of his statement, it seems life was not made with noteable intelligence. This omission alone really hurts the creationist stance because it acknowledging an imperfection in their creator's design.

2) The claim on ostracods is confusing. At first, he wrote, "It was fossilized exceptionally well, and almost idential to living Ostracods" and later writes, "...Ostracods were not changing into anything." I have to ask, why should we expect ostracods to change into anything else other than ostracods? I am not sure if the writer is excerising the common, "if humans came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys" talking point or he is criticizing modern day ostracods for looking like replicas from the past and therefore, evolution should be changing them more frequently.

I don't see how ostracods can be used as a way to prove that the Earth is young, because if the
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
~6,000 years old
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
How young?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SchinkBR 2 years ago
SchinkBR
GarretKadeDupreIntellectualAtheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Shame he forfeited, it was actually looking to be a really good debate