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

Young Earth Creationism Is Improbable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/22/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,822 times Debate No: 74792
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (1)




You have asked to accept this debate.

Full Resolution

Young earth creationism is improbable.

BoP is shared.


Young Earth Creationism: "...the religious belief that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God in a period of 6 days, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago." [1]

Improbable: "Unlikely to take place or be true." [2]


1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. Forfeits are not allowed.
3. No trolling/kritiks/deconstructional semantics.
4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate; sources may be inside this debate or in an external link.
5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument.

Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.

Debate Structure

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by Con)
Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)
Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)




I accept with the stipulation that Pro explicate what he means by the rather obscure phrase "deconstructional semantics"
in rule 3 in either the comments or in the 2nd round.

Thanks for the opportunity to engage on this topic!
Debate Round No. 1


C1) The universe is older than 10,000 years

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the ongoing large-scale evolution of the universe [1]. It states that the universe was in a high-density state as a gravitational singularity [2], and then expanded. According to research by the 2014 ‘Planck collaboration’, the moment of the universe being in a state of singularity was 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago, which is, thus, considered the age of the universe due to its beginning of expansion then [3][4]. Thus, if the Big Bang cosmological model is true, the age of the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years, much older than the creationist prediction of 5,700-10,000 years.

The Big Bang theory rests on two assumptions -- that physical laws are the same throughout the universe, and that the universe is homogeneous. That physical laws are the same throughout the universe is a basic prediction of special relativity [5].

I shall now make a case for the homogeneity of the universe. The Las Campanas Redshift Survey was an attempt to map a large area of the universe out to a redshift of z = 0.2 [6]. What is ‘redshift’? “In physics, redshift happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum.” [7] According to observations from the Las Campanas Redshift Survey, galactic distribution seems to suggest that the universe is homogeneous [8]. In the image from the survey below, “[e]ach dot represents a galaxy (about 20,000 in the total survey) where they have measured both the position on the sky and the redshift and translated that into a location in the universe. Imagine putting down many circles of a fixed size on that plot and counting how many galaxies are inside each circle. If you used a small aperture, then the number of galaxies in any given circle is going to fluctuate a lot relative to the mean number of galaxies in all the circles: some circles will be completely empty, while others could have more than a dozen. On the other hand, if you use large circles, the variation from circle to circle ends up being quite small compared to the average number of galaxies in each circle. This is what cosmologists mean when they say that the universe is homogeneous.” [9]

A stronger case for the homogeneity of the universe is made by the cosmic microwave background (CMB), thermal radiation left over from the initial singularity [10]. The radiation of the CMB is virtually homogeneous and isotropic to roughly 1 part in 10o,000. This spectrum has been redshifted by the expansion of the universe, and today corresponds to approximately 2.725 K [11].

Cosmic Microwave Background - from my Big Bang debates

There is abundance of light elements such as helium in the universe. There is a variation in different light element ratios, e.g. the ratio of helium to deuterium (an atom of hydrogen with both a proton and a neutron in its nucleus, as opposed to normal hydrogen isotopes that have only a proton). This is explained only by the BBT. “[T]here is no obvious reason outside of the Big Bang that, for example, the young universe should have more helium than deuterium or more deuterium than 3He, and in constant ratios, too.” [12]

Thus, the Big Bang model is probably true, confirming an age of the universe much greater than 10,000 years.

C2) Evolutionary history of life

This contention shall follow the following structure.

P1: Evolution predicts that new species arose via. natural selection over a period of 3 billion years.

P2: Evolution is likely true.

C: New species arose via. natural selection over a period of 3 billion years, thus contradicting YEC.

P1 is true by evolution’s definition, thus I need only affirm P2 to affirm this contention.

a) Universal genetic code

The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins by living cells [13]. The genetic code used by all known forms of life is nearly universal with few minor variations [14].

Evolution is the sole biological theory that explains the universality of the genetic code [15], thus is likely true.

b) Genetic commonalities

There are various genetic commonalities between species that is only explained by evolution, e.g. the genetic commonalities between chimpanzees and humans. “The DNA sequence differences between humans and chimpanzees is about thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. Typical human and chimp protein homologs differ in only an average of two amino acids.” [16] This means that human and chimp DNA are around 96% alike [17]. “Sequence differences from the human genome were confirmed to be ∼1% in areas that can be precisely aligned, representing ∼35 million single base-pair differences. Some 45 million nucleotides of insertions and deletions unique to each lineage were also discovered, making the actual difference between the two genomes ∼4%.” [18]

This is only explained by evolution. Thus, evolution is likely true. The premises entail the conclusion.

C3) The Earth is older than YEC predicts

Uranium-lead zircon dating via. radiometric methods has affirmed a date of the origin of the Earth’s crust to be much greater than 10,000 years, as some papers show land masses existing far greater than 10,000 years ago (the example I shall show is Gondwanaland) [19]. Thus, all I need to demonstrate is that U-Pb zircon dating has sound assumptions to show that the Earth is > 10,000 years old.

Zircon (ZrSiO4), i.e. zirconium silicate, is a nesosilicate mineral that naturally excludes trace lead during crystallization [20]. Using zircon U-Pb dating, one can date a sample via. equations for exponential decay [21], e.g. Fig. 6.

In the above equation:

Nnow = no. of U atoms measured now

Norig = no. of Pb atoms measured now + no. of U atoms measured now

λ = decay rate of U

t = age of ZrSiO4 rock (which one wants to determine)

These are said to yield high-precision ages for ZrSiO4 rock [22]. Thus, ZrSiO4 Pb-U radiometric dating has sound assumptions, and has yielded dates for land masses much older than 10,000 years, indicating the Earth is older than YEC predicts.

The resolution is resoundingly negated.

1. Joseph Silk (2008). Horizons of Cosmology. p. 208.


3. Ibid.


5. Paul Davies (1992). The Mind of God. p. 82.




9. Ibid.









18. Ajit Varki and David L. Nelson (2007). “Genomic Comparisons of Humans and Chimpanzees.” Annual Review of Anthropology. 36:191-209.







Young Earth Creationism is highly probable.

Argument #1: Humans who have recorded history have only been around so long. They who were the most ancient do not recognize "millions and billions" of years but a relatively recent Creation event. It is one event in the minds of those peoples who are closer experientially to the beginning of time. If we ignore their testimony, we might as well ignore scientists who are speculating about events even farther back from their immediate horizon. The Biblical account of creation and its various versions in other cultures across the world support the notion of a recent Creation event. [4] As the early 20th century author, Dr. Hugo Radau, points out, there are similarities between the Genesis account and the Babylonian/Sumerian creation account involving the god, Marduk (Radau, pp. 1-6).

Argument #2: It is supposed to be a strength of evolutionism that, like scientific induction, it is subject to experimental verification. But in the case of determining absolutely the age of the earth, that is not a strength! It is very much a weakness. If the age of the earth can continue to become "older" based on newer scientific calculations, then we might as well not give *any* date to the earth or universe since it might change tomorrow. As Jack Cuozzo writes regarding timeline theories of Neanderthal man and other presumed hominid ancestors, paleoanthropologists can merely exaggerate their numbers to make their theories appear to work. "It concerns numbers of stone, flint-like tools which had to be inflated to justify the total number of years that supposedly existed during the three Paleolithic Ages displayed at St. Germain-en-laye museum..." (Cuozzo, p. 104).

Argument #3: Haldane's dilemma: Given the long evolutionary history projected between hominid ancestors, such as Lucy (australopithecus afarensis), and our current human population, there would not be enough time to evolve our human species. Major biological changes would be necessary but slow, evolutionary changes through natural selection would not provide enough changes to perform species-differentiation. As CreationWiki summarizes: "All the necessary data, theory, and claims, come from evolutionists. The calculation is:
Allow 10 million years for an ape-man lineage. (This figure favors evolution by allowing far more time than is available.)
Divided by 20 years effective generation time. (This figure is from evolutionary geneticists, for this lineage, over this period of time.)
Divided by 300 generations per beneficial substitution. (This figure is from Haldane"s calculations.)
Equals a maximum of 1667 beneficial mutations substituted into that ape-man lineage. (Plus some limited number of neutral mutations, which do nothing to improve adaptation.)
The problem is: Can all the uniquely human adaptations be explained within that limit? Such adaptations would include: the tripling of brain size, upright posture, hand dexterity, vocal speech organs, language, distribution of hair, and appreciation of music, to name a few. That can be compared with the power of beneficial mutations observed today, such as the alleged examples in the beaks of"Galapagos finches."Is a limit of 1,667 beneficial mutations sufficient to create all the uniquely human adaptations?"This is Haldane"s Dilemma. The problem is deepened by the fact that"Haldane"s assumptions are wildly unrealistic"in favor"of evolution." [3]

Argument #4: Ancient civilizations are more intelligent than our own modern civilizations. If old-earth creationism or evolutionism were true, we would expect to see certain things in ancient civilizations. We would expect them to be less advanced and less "evolved" or intelligent. But that is not the case.

Argument #5: Young Earth Creationism predicts death and decay whereas evolutionism does not. For evolutionism, death and decay are a big question mark. How did they come about? No one can give a naturalistic answer to that question.

Argument #6: A linchpin story of evolution has been thoroughly dismantled. Dinosaurs did not live 65 million years ago and become extinct. Once a fairy tale, now disconfirmed and disabusing overeager evolutionists.

Soft dinosaur tissue has been a stupefying blow to "millions of year" evolutionary tales. Evolutionary scientists were so skeptical of the research conducted by Mary Schweitzer and her colleagues that they demanded test after test to try to find contaminants which had entered the archeological dig. [1] At first, evolutionists had hoped that paleontologists would not uncover any more tissue which should have already fossilized or decayed from C14 analysis. [1]

Argument #7: If a universal flood occurred, as purports much of geologic evidence, then it bolsters the claims of the Biblical account of Creation since that account is followed by what many believe to be an incredible account of a world-wide or universal flood and only a handful of survivors.

Argument #8: "Natural selection" was a pardigmatic discovery made by Creationist, Edward Blyth, even though Charles Darwin was credited with its discovery (Morris & Morris, p. 34). Blyth correctly applied the theory of natural selection whereas Darwin misapplied it and tried to construe it as a creative and productive force in nature that evolved new species. In fact, Natural Selection is not generative; it is eliminative. Natural selection is a logical tautology and not synthetic in a Kantian sense - "Those that fit the environment survive. Why do they survive? Because they fit the environment" (Ibid; Chui, p. 85). It demonstrates what what is fit, survives and therefore what biologists observe to have survived will have been those which are fittest. That information does not tell us anything about what natural selection "produced" however.

Limited genetic variability allowing some essential survivability supports the Young Earth Creationist model of a Creation orchard rather than an evolutionary tree (Sarfati, pp. 38-39; Wise, p. 358).

Argument #9: Paralleling the multiplying dinosaur tissue discoveries is the underwater discovery of seabed worms which are supposedly pre-Cambrian and over 500 million years old. If they are truly this old, then why is soft tissue still present on the fossilized specimen? [2] Researchers were even able to determine that nanobacteria, dated accordinly, were abundantly available.

Argument #10: It may be the case that YEC is not only highly probably but inescapable. Human consciousness and language is a tremendous mystery given evolution. None has observed consciousness evolving from creatures incapable of consciousness to creatures who have consciousness. Likewise, linguistic capacity has never been seen evolving. Thus, the mere fact that one human being attempt to communicate, as in this debate, presupposes that consciousness and linguistic ability are non-evolved and stable. If languages appear, fully formed, then it confirms the Creation models where these sorts of faculties are not slowly developed over eons but are co-eval with humans. If languages did not appear intact, then my opponent and I could not communicate. We would both lie at different levels of consciousness and linguistic levels. Yet we can communicate. Therefore, the YEC model is confirmed.

Argument #11: Baraminology supports YEC (Wise, pp. 345-358). Using discontinuity bio-systematics exploring and classifying specimens based on empirically governed criteria, not imaginary examples, baraminology has been able to demonstrate more precisely the nature of a biblical "kind" versus the ever-changing efforts at defining species by modern evolutionists (Ibid; ReMine, pp. 207-209).

Argument #12: The implosion of bad evolutionary arguments has led many to recognize that importing "millions and billions" of years is not enough to support the metaphysical weight of the evolution. Crumbling evidences for the evolutionary tree include "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" or what Dr. Haeckel, devout Darwinian follower, called "the fundamental biogenetic law" (Davidheiser, p. 241). But propping up the presumably long ages of biological evolution in this deceptive manner, with scientists increasingly discrediting it, was not enough to dislodge the faith of textbook writers refusing to remove it as evidence for evolution's time-line (Ibid).
Chui, Christopher K. Did God Use Evolution to "Create"?: A Critique of Biological Evolution, Geological Evolution, and Astronomical Evolution. Canoga Park, CA.: Logos Publishers, 1993.

Davidheiser, Bolton. Evolution and Christian Faith. Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, 1969.

Cuozzo, Jack. Buried Alive: The Startling, Untold Story about Neanderthal Man. Green Forest, AR.: Master Books, 1998.

Morris, Henry M. and John D. Morris. The Modern Creation Trilogy: Science and Creation. Vol. II. Green Forest, AR.: Master Books, 1996.

Radau, Hugo. The Creation Story of Genesis I: A Sumerian Theogony and Cosmogony. Chicago, IL.: Open Court Publishing, 1902.

ReMine, Walter J. "Discontinuity Systematics: A New Methodology of Biosystematics Relevant to the Creation Model," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism: Vol. II Technical Symposium Sessions and Additional Topics, Pittsburgh, PA.: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1990.

Sarfati, Jonathan. Refuting Evolution. Green Forest, AR.: Master Books, 2001.

Wise, Kurt P. "Baraminology: A Young-Earth Creation Biosystematic Method," Proceedings...., Pittsburgh, PA.: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1990.




Debate Round No. 2



Ob1: Since YEC is so defined, under a shared BoP, Con must demonstrate that the following things are probable--the universe, Earth, and all life were created by God, they were created in a period of precisely 144 hours, and they were created sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago.

Ob2: All of Con’s arguments only justify the age of life and the Earth. They do not, in any way, show that the *universe* was created the same time, that it took place in precisely 6 days, and that God created them. Thus, the resolution has not been entirely negated. By the debate structure, these are the only arguments Con is allowed to present, thus Con has not justified YEC.

Ob3: Con presents 12 arguments for a young Earth. This is a debating technique called ‘Gish Gallop’, which is generally considered highly misconducted. Thus, I request voters to penalize Con’s misconduct.

Ob4: If I am able to demonstrate anything against the definition of YEC, i.e. if I can uphold even one of my arguments, I have successfully affirmed the resolution.


#1. The scientific method is primarily based on evidence. There is no *evidence* for these myths, means it is best they are dismissed as improbable, especially if there is evidence to the contrary.

#2. This is challenging the essence of scientific studies themselves, thus is a kritik of the topic. Rule 3 explicitly forbids kritiks of the topic. In addition, challenging the scientific studies supporting creationism is also easily possible, thus this attacks both sides. And it is highly improbable that every single study has an exaggeration, or most studies--the exaggeration, in addition, cannot have a 13.8 billion year difference, i.e. it is highly improbable. The same for the age of the Earth and life.

#3. New studies have found invalid assumptions made by Haldane while formulating the dilemma. Haldane made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach a fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously to reach fixation faster [1][2][3]. “[S]ubsequent corrected calculations found that the cost [found by Haldane’s dilemma] disappears.” [4] Thus, recent research shows the dilemma disappears.

#4. This is a straw-man of evolution. Evolution predicts that changes take a long time to appear depending on the species, thus such a misrepresentation does not argue against evolution. This argument is a straw-man [5], thus is logically fallacious.

#5. Various theories of evolution do predict death, e.g. Peter Medawar’s theory of mammal aging [6]. Evolutionary biology predicts that “[t]he force of selection declines with age.” [7] Thus, aging is not an evolutionary paradox according to new theories.

#6. First, this is irrelevant to the resolution. Nonetheless, I shall address it. This is refuted via. radiometric dating, i.e. Pb-U zircon dating. Radiometric dating of the rock formation that contained fossils from the early dinosaur genus Eoraptor confirms that this species is 231.4 million years old [8]. Basic fossil dating suggests lizards, reptiles and dinosaurs did become extinct gradually at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary, around 66 million years ago [9].

#7. A ‘universal flood’ is entirely irrelevant to a young Earth. There is also no evidence for a global flood [10], as my opponent asserts.

#8. My argument that proves evolution answers this, showing that genetics, etc. actually demonstrates that a process of evolution is likely true.

#9. Whether or not they are ‘soft’ is irrelevant, as they were validly dated to be millions of years old.

#10. Humans merely have evolved brains that allow us to process language and syntax--evolution has a valid answer for this. There is no reason to believe that communication cannot have arisen via. evolution, or the ability to perceive subjectively (which is shared by many other species) [11].

#11. This is begging the question. Baraminology assumes creationism is true, thus Con is using circular reasoning here.

#12. The supposed ‘bad evolutionary arguments’ were not presented by me. Until Con refutes my arguments on evolution, #12 is irrelevant.

Now, note that Con has failed to produce an argument affirming that God created the universe, and that the universe is young. By the debate structure, Con *cannot* present such arguments anymore, thus if I defend the universe contention of mine, whether or not I’m unable to refute Con’s arguments, you automatically vote Pro.

Thus, I affirm. Over to Con.







7. Ibid.






My opponent spends a great deal of attention on Big Bang Cosmology. Let's examine the soundness of this model as a mechanism for assigning a date to the age of the universe. Reference is made to the assumption that the physical laws in the universe have to be constant and to the homogeneity of the universe but really, there is a much larger assumption that needs to be justified than either of these first two.

That assumption has to do with a constant rate of expansion or uniformitarianism. That is, from the big bang source, it has to be theorized that matter was unfolding at the same rate at the beginning as at all other points in time. But this assumption is non-demonstrable. One might try to argue that the apparent homogeneity of the universe would show a uniform rate of expansion, but symmetry and patterns do not tell us how long it took for those patterns to form. Also, the degree to which the universe is truly homogeneous is highly questionable - "Now if a super cluster can extend half way around the sky, there doesn't seem too much room left to look for homogeneity (Hoyle via Morris & Morris, 208).

But Big Bang Cosmology "contradicts at least two basic laws of science: 1. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that 'disorder' in a closed system must increase with time; the 'big bang' idea, on the other hand, states that the primeval explosion (which would certainly have been the ultimate in disorder!) has somehow increased the 'order' of the whole universe with time. 2. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum states that pure radial motion (in the primeval explosion, all products would move radially outward from its center) cannot give rise to orbital motion; yet planets, stars, and galaxies somehow all managed to start to rotate in vast orbits around different centers throughout the universe" (Ibid., 206).

Thus, if tejretics is attempting to argue something like, if the universality of scientific laws and the homogeneity of the universe hold true, then the Big Bang is plausible, then he is certainly not reckoning with universal scientific laws which would discredit Big Bang theory. Perhaps tejretics is being selective as to which laws are universal. Other substantial issues with the big bang include the mathematical impossibility of galaxy-formation and the formation of stars (Sarfati, 93-94).

Cosmic background radiation might be an acceptable evidence for the Big Bang except that it is explanatorily impoverished. "Energy density of the microwave background..." is easily accounted for without the extreme means of believing that the "radiation also has a non-primordial astrophysical origin" (Oldershaw via Morris & Morris, 216).

The problem with the light nuclei being explainable by the Big Bang is that the evidence proves too much. A particular "baryon-to-photon" ratio must be assumed "ad hoc" in order to make this convincing. By assuming this ratio, the Big Bang could explain any lighter element without really explaining anything (Arp, et al., via Morris & Morris, 217).

Next, tejretics thinks that he can pass off a tautology as an argument for evolution under "Evolutionary history of life." P1 makes the fundamental confusion that micro-evolution is not equated with macro-evolution. Darwin himself made this confusion in his famous work on the origin of the species. This is such a basic proposition but natural selection is not creative; it is eliminative. It does not produce a fundamentally different creature that it started with.

Under "Universal Genetic Code," the argument does not present anything relevant to the age of the universe or the earth.

Likewise, with tejretics argument regarding human-ape genetic similarities. This does not demonstrate anything regarding the age of the universe or earth. Creationists see common genetic material as evidence that apes and humans have a common designer who intelligently utilized the same DNA material to compose baramins.

As to "Uranium-lead zircon dating," my opponent cites an article entitled "Uranium-Lead Isotopic Variations in Zircons: A Case Study" which reports the following: "Apparent ages calculated from several minerals in the same host rock commonly have been in significant disagreement. It is to be hope that some of these contradictory "ages" may be reconciled, in part....." That is precisely the problem! That is why Creationists caution old-earth thinkers to use wisdom when trying to arrive at dates from rocks when these same rocks yield so many different results.

Exclusion of trace PB cannot be guaranteed in this type of dating. "Faure avoided using whole rock uraniums for dating because he would have difficulty separating the primordial Pb-206 with radiogenic Pb-206. Zircons have been extensively used because Zircons could pick up U but not Pb. This is in fact contradicted by using Pb-204 as a reference" (Chui, 105).

Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the old-age view of the universe and earth looks like more of a cobbled-together attempt as justifying a crumbling paradigm rather than a rational way to do science. The evolutionary-ages framework should simply be abandoned. It's not producing good science, but bad rationalizations using questionable evidence, at best.


Cited in previous round
Debate Round No. 3


C1) Evolutionary history of life

a) Microevolution vs Macroevolution

By the definition of ‘creationism’, all life was created in a period of precisely six days, contrary to the basic assumptions of evolution via. natural selection [1]. Microevolutionary changes are not predicted by creationism - mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, and selection cause changes in allele frequencies over long periods of time [2], causing observable differences, e.g. bacterial resistance to antibiotics [3]. Thus, microevolution also predicts evolution of new subspecies via. selection.

It is obvious that macroevolution predicts evolution of new species, over periods of time greater than six days. It occurs on the scale of separated gene pools, thus producing new species and genera, contrary to all subspecies being created in a period of 6 days [4].

Thus, both micro- and macroevolution produce new subspecies and species, refuting the overall basis of creationism.

b) Universal Genetic Code

The universal genetic code may not present anything relevant to the age of the universe or Earth, but is relevant to proving life evolved in a period greater than merely six days, since it proves evolution is likely true [5]. Con keeps dismissing my evidence as irrelevant, but it is *clearly* relevant.

“All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.” [6]

Thus, the presence of a universal genetic code acts as strong observational evidence for a common ancestor, and, in extension, evolution.

c) Genetic Commonalities

Here, Con gives us ad hoc by claiming “apes and humans have a common designer who intelligently utilized the same DNA material to compose baramins.” But Con has given us no reason to believe all life was created in six days, while evolutionary changes via. selection show that new species have constantly arisen. But I concede that if such an ad hoc stance is taken, this does not prove evolution.

d) Rejecting Evolution Is Absurd

There exists a plethora of observational and empirical evidence for evolution, thus it is perplexing to see denial of forms of evolution. I shall present some basic observational evidence here.

Genetic Mutations

Genetic mutations occur when mistakes are made in transcribing DNA [7]. Mutations can occur in hereditary and somatic cells [8]. Mutations do occur in all species. Observational evidence for mutation has been seen in Drosophila, with mutations changing proteins formed in the gene [9]. Mutations also cause the formation of malignant tumors, observed in humans as cancer [10].

Selection and Genetic Mutations Combined

Con has already addressed this, and I shall attempt to counter-rebut Con’s assertions based on natural selection here.

Selection, as described, is the process by which certain mutations are favored and continue to thrive to form variations in sexual characteristics and survival characteristics [11][12]. The combination of mutations and selection explains the origin of species. The first species was a single-celled organism similar to modern Archaea and bacteria, which gradually evolved via. selection and genetic mutation sparked by chemical processes that created the “Cambrian explosion” [13].

Selection is observed in nature, e.g. in the case of the Galapagos finches, with microevolutionary beak modifications that led to changes in subspecies and species, eventually branching into macroevolution.

C2) The universe is older than 10,000 years

a) First, Con questions the homogeneity of the universe. As I mentioned, the cosmological redshift survey confirmed homogeneity of energy in the universe, but here, Con seems to misinterpret homogeneity to mean homogeneity of spacetime itself. The uniform rate of expansion of the universe is *not* a necessary prediction of the Big Bang, since it has basis on the curvature of the universe. The rate of the universe’s expansion is increasing, and that is compatible with the standard model [14][15]. The acceleration of cosmic expansion is because of dark energy [16].

b) Con accuses Big Bang cosmology of violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but their understanding of the Second Law is based on a catastrophic misconception. Con equates entropy with ‘disorder’, but the disorder which Con suggests is entirely subjective. Mathematically, the definition of entropy is that a change in entropy equals the integral of dQ/T, where dQ is an infinitesimal change in heat and T is the temperature. The Second Law states that the entropy of a system is proportional to its multiplicity. The multiplicity is the number of microstates in one macrostate. One does not need to know the combinatorics behind this. View the multiplicity as simply a measure of the number of states of the system. The basic point is, hotter, bigger, less pressurized systems have a larger multiplicity, or more potential states than colder, smaller, more pressurized systems [17]. Thus, an interpretation of entropy as subjective ‘disorder’ is flawed. Furthermore, the ‘primeval explosion’ (‘expansion’ is a more appropriate term) need not be considered of a higher-entropy state--most physicists agree that in a state of gravitational singularity, since it is a colder, smaller, pressurized system, the entropy would be especially low, or even at a state of zero-entropy. Furthermore, the Big Bang was not ‘disordered’--take the CMBR, for example, which was entirely homogeneous and its homogeneity is decreasing with expansion, versus the clusters of galaxies today.

c) “The law of conservation of angular momentum only states that the total angular momentum in the universe (after vector addition/integration) is equal to the original angular momentum at the time of the big bang. Local forces like gravity can change local angular momenta as long as it adds up to the same quantity when one considers the entire universe. … The source of the angular momentum of objects is not asserted by physicists to be some kind of intrinsic angular momentum from the big bang. It is a product of the gravitational collapse of a large, diffuse body into a smaller, more compact object. In this process, substantial gravitational potential energy is released into other forms. Some of it goes into the heat energy of the resulting object, but some goes into orbital and rotational angular momentum.” [18] Furthermore, the ‘primeval explosion’ suggests radial expansion of *space*, and the distribution of energy from the singularity may have been in any form of motion, and it is impossible to determine which.

d) The baryon-photon ratio is not assumed ad hoc, and, according to many physicists, deuterium-helium ratio is not explicable by any hypothesis except one with the same baryon-photon ratio, even the YEC hypothesis [19].

C3) The Earth is older than YEC predicts

Most geologists, nonetheless, suggest that Pb-U ZrSiO4 dating has the most accurate radioisotope dates of any form of radiometric dating [20].

Result variation will always occur, but the variation is not such as to yield dates for the age of the Earth to be 10,000 years, and it’s far from that. Pb-U ZrSiO4 dating tends to yield the soundest dates there are, thus it is trustworthy, at least in a *radius* of variance that is greater than 10,000 years. In fact, standard uranium-lead zircon dating precision range is 0.1-1% [21].

Secondly, Pb-204 is generally not used in Pb-U dating--the Pb isotopes generally used to determine dates are Pb-207 and Pb-206 [22].


The entirety of Con’s case is based on a flawed assumption--if the Earth and life are young, God created them. This is, obviously, an unsound assumption. Additionally, Con drops the universe. If I have, thus, upheld even one of these contentions properly, I automatically win this debate.

Con can only defend their case in R4, and rebuttals of my case or new arguments will result in a rule violation, thus new arguments and rebuttals must be ignored.

The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro.








8. Ibid.




12. Ernst Mayr (1972), “Sexual selection and natural selection”, in Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man: the Darwinian Pivot.




16. Ibid.





21. Parrish, Randall R.; Noble, Stephen R. (2003). “Zircon U-Th-Pb Geochronology by Isotope Dilution” – Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometry (ID-TIMS). In Zircon (eds. J. Hanchar and P. Hoskin). Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, Mineralogical Society of America. 183-213.




Many thanks to tejretics for opening up this debate topic for consideration and for accepting me as an opponent. This is a topic worth exploring, even though the material is often difficult to get a handle on.

I will address the observations and objections of my opponent. Subsequently, I will tackle some new evidence which tejretics tries to introduce in this final round to salvage old-age evolution, such as the Galapagos finches, which are one of the strongest evidences for young-earth creationism available.

Tejretics begins with four observations, one of which is patently absurd. He maintains that I cannot present 12 arguments for young earth creationism. Would he hold himself to that standard and argue that he cannot present 12 arguments for old age evolutionism? I don't need to belabor the absurdity here. Obs.#4 is mathematically flawed. He alleges that if he upholds just one assertion, then he will have succeeded in the debate. That is just rhetorical flair. Readers can judge a debate based on a preponderance of evidence and efficacy of arguments.

Regarding his rebuttals, tejretics thinks that he can be dismissive toward ancient creation stories. But not so fast! Reporting of a recent creation by multiple cultures should not be dismissed easily for the reasons I gave. Ancient civilizations are often very advanced in their thinking and history-recording.

Regarding being a "kritik," the source I cited is seriously interacting with the various "old-earth" histories proposed by evolutionists to account for the phenomenon of "Neanderthal" man. That is not the fanciful thinking of a "kritik" but a scientific probing into the inconsistencies of the dates proposed by paleo-anthropologists (Cuozzo, 104). Evolutionary scientists actually had to exaggerate how many tools had been discovered during the "Paleolithic Era" at the St. Germain-en-laye museum to accommodate what they believed to represent "10,000 generations" of ancient humans (Ibid.).

My opponent seems to be forgetting that Haldane's dilemma regarding the number of favorable mutations which must occur for one animal to turn into a different type of animal was calculated with the odds heavily stacked in favor of evolution and yet Haldane doubted that evolutionary genetics could account for it. As to the criticism that he assumed a constant population size, this is readily addressed as irrelevant to "cost" calculated by Haldane. [1]The "cost" occurs, regardless of what the population size of the species is and regardless of how variable the environment is. As Haldane writes, "Do they [variations or mutations] show any sign of being mainly in any one direction, or of advantage to their possessor?....Out of over 400 mutations observed in one fly, all but two seemed to be disadvantageous; and they showed no definite tendency in any one direction." [2]
It isn't a "straw man" argument that evolution would predict that ancient civilizations would be primitive. It follows logically and many evolutionists have maintained this in their writings, particularly in regard to the former belief that Neanderthal man was not speech-capable (an evolutionary idea) which was overturned by evidence (Morris & Morris, 90-91).
The Bible predates modern attempts at trying to explain death through blind, evolutionary forces.

It is hardly irrelevant to raise a point of empirical verifiability about the Bible in regards to the age of the earth. If the Bible presents more concrete scenarios by which we can develop interesting and testable hypotheses of the paleo-diet, then we ought to take seriously its timeline regarding the age of the earth.

Apparently, tejretics didn't read the information about the soft-tissue dinosaur discovery that I presented or read any of the literature. First, it is entirely relevant to the case for young earth creationism. If the evolutionary stories of "millions of years" is dismantled and discredited, then the alternative becomes much more plausible! It is, indeed, very relevant. Had tejretics delved a bit more into the literature, he would have seen that the soft-tissue collagen completely refutes any supposed rock-dating method. Soft-tissue simply does not survive that long. [3] "Millions of years" becomes a nice fairy-tale, at best, and a deception, at worst, given this historic discovery. Bear in mind that so many tests were performed because evolutions were extremely reluctant to contend with the force of the discovery.

On baraminology, a biosystematic model is proposed which better accounts for the data than making an evolutionary assumption that all species may merge into one another. Baraminology doesn't assume "creationism is true." It takes the notion of "kind" (probably broader than recent formulations of "species") and teases out the implications in natural and experimental study. It predicts fixity of "kinds" and that is exactly what we find in nature, even after utilizing attempts at artificial selection intended to show creative power of natural selection.

I am pleased to see that tejretics cites the finches which were studied so thoroughly, not only by Darwin, but by other Galapagos explorers and scientists. The follow-up investigation by the Princeton duo, Peter and Rosemary Grant, which attempted to replicate Darwin's speculations where he thought that micro-variations of internal biology which expressed itself in morphology could eventually lead to huge, meta-species modifications turned out to be anything but helpful toward Darwin's leap of logic. [4] In fact, the more systematic study uncovered a fixity of bird kind which was originally predicted by the young-earth creation model. This model proposes a "creation orchard" which better fits the empirical data that was compiled at the Galapagos Islands. In a trick of irony, Darwin's work helps to bolster young earth creationism since the beak length and structure which had seemed to vary, promising results in the direction of "macro-evolution," turned out to be nothing but a dud. It was a famine that temporarily altered beak structure and not some sort of Darwinian tendency to develop a new species. [4] Nothing new genetically had been added to the finches to morph them into a different type or "kind" of animal....exactly as young earth creationism had predicted for thousands of years in this ancient text called the "Bible"!

Again, I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss this topic with tejretics. I'm fairly sure that we both grew in our appreciation of one another's position throughout the course of this debate.

[2] " under sub-heading "The Future of Biology"


Clark, Gordon H. The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God. Jefferson, MD.: The Trinity Foundation, 1987.

Cuozzo, Jack. Buried Alive: The Startling, Untold Story about Neanderthal Man. Green Forest, AR.: Master Books, 1998.

Morris, Henry M. and John D. Morris. The Modern Creation Trilogy: Science and Creation. Vol. II. Green Forest, AR.: Master Books, 1996.

Radau, Hugo. The Creation Story of Genesis I: A Sumerian Theogony and Cosmogony. Chicago, IL.: Open Court Publishing, 1902.

ReMine, Walter J. "Discontinuity Systematics: A New Methodology of Biosystematics Relevant to the Creation Model," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism: Vol. II Technical Symposium Sessions and Additional Topics, Pittsburgh, PA.: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1990.

Wise, Kurt P. "Baraminology: A Young-Earth Creation Biosystematic Method," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism: Vol. II Technical Symposium Sessions and Additional Topics, Pittsburgh, PA.: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1990.
Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
But thanks for the removal, @Bluesteel =)
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
That was a slow removal ... I reported that a few days back.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
>Reported vote: Hayd // Moderator action: Removed<

Voted for Pro (choose winner). Reasons for voting decision: Pro won the debate because: A.Con?s sources and ?evidence? for his arguments were mostly (if not all) from creationist websites. Obviously a creationist website would be completely biased about topics of creationism therefore Con?s sources were biased. B.Pro supported his arguments with graphs and diagrams to show how he is right. C.Pro points out all the flaws in Con?s arguments and defends his own. Pro debated better, therefore my vote goes to Pro.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Sources. The choose winner system is equivalent to the argument point. Sources are only relevant if they affect the substance of the debate. (2) Who did the better debating? This RFD fails to explain this in specific terms. It is far too generic, i.e. "Pro supported his arguments with graphs" and "Pro points out all the flaws in Con's arguments." This could be said of any debate.
Posted by theisticscuffles 3 years ago
Thank you, once again, Mr. Morcos, for a great and in-depth analysis of the debate.
Posted by salam.morcos 3 years ago
(Part 1)

Conduct: Pro asked to penalize Con for Gish Galloping. I don't think that this was intentional, and therefore I consider conduct as tied. However, this will cost Con point on the argument side.
Language: Tied.
Sources: Tied.

Arguments: Before I begin, I will assume no understanding and no presupposition, and it's the role of the two debaters to convince me. Pretending not to have any knowledge about a subject that I have knowledge about is very difficult!

Pro's arguments:

1. Age of universe

Pro claimed that the Big Bang theory proves that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. He also provided several explanations of why the theory is more likely to be true. He explains that the theory depends on 2 assumptions: 1- homogeneity of the universe. 2- physical laws are the same. Pro defends homogeneity by showing evidence supporting it such as: red shift, CMB and abundance of light elements.

Con's rebuttal:

a. Con argues that the Big Bang assumes that the expansion rate was uniform or constant, which is non-demonstrable. Pro explains that the Big Bang doesn't expect the expansion rate to be constant, but it's accelerating. What I think that I understood from Con's objection is that he is inferring that the Big Bang could have occurred much faster than predicted, but didn't explain his point clearly. But even if that's the case, Con should show some evidence or models to suggest the possibility of a "faster rate". Without the proper explanation from Con, an unbiased reader would be inclined to side with Pro as he has shown scientific evidence, and Con failed to do so.
Posted by salam.morcos 3 years ago
(Part 2)

b. Con argues that the degree to which the universe is truly homogeneous is highly questionable. Pro then explains that energy is homogeneous (and that spacetime is not homogeneous? That was unclear) And when Pro states that the homogeneity of the universe is a necessary assumption for the Big Bang, does that mean that the homogeneity of the universe is the same as the homogeneity of energy? Pro's response is inadequate/unclear so Con wins this point.

c. Con argues that the Big Bang contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics, arguing that the initial explosion was the ultimate in disorder and somehow increased in order later. Pro explains that the beginning of the Big Bang wasn't a true explosion, but more of an expansion and that there was low entropy. Pro's defense was adequate so he wins this point.

d. Con argues that the Big Bang contradicts the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, which means that planets, stars couldn't have started to rotate. Con didn't explain how that's being violated, so Pro explains the law on his behalf. The law only states that the total angular momentum in the universe (after vector addition/integration) is equal to the original angular momentum at the time of the big bang". Pro explains that gravity can change the momentum "as long as it adds up to the same quantity". Pro wins this point because Con failed to explain how the Big Bang violated the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, and Pro's explanation was clear.

e. Con argues that the mathematical impossibility of galaxy-formation challenged the Big Bang theory. This would have been a good point if Con explained how that's the case. Pro didn't challenge Con, so no one wins this point.
Posted by salam.morcos 3 years ago
(Part 3)

f. Con also argues that "Energy density of the microwave background..." is easily accounted for without the extreme means of believing that the "radiation also has a non-primordial astrophysical origin." This argument doesn't necessarily refute the Big Bang. It just says that other theories could be possible. What are these theories? Con didn't explain. No points awarded.

g. Con argues that the problem with the light nuclei being explainable by the Big Bang. Con claims that the "baryon-photon" ratio is ad hoc, but Pro's response is unclear and the source he provided is invalid. This point goes to Con.

Pro argument stands and he wins this contention.

2. Evolution

Pro argues that if evolution is true, then life is at least 3 billion years old. He first defends evolution by showing that all lives are nearly universal except for a few variations. He shows how humans DNA's is 96% similar to chimpanzee's. This similarity according to Pro corroborates the evolution theory.

Con's rebuttal:

a. Con argues that P1 makes the fundamental confusion that micro-evolution is not equated with macro-evolution (Including Darwin). This is the same point as Con's argument #8, so I'll discuss it there.

b. Con doesn't agree with Universal Genetic Code, but he argues that nothing in that argument relates to ago. The same applies to human-ape similarities. Pro was trying to prove that evolution is true (i.e. P2) to support his syllogism. Con wins this argument because even if Evolution was true, Pro must show how evolution is 3 billion years old. It's not evolution that shows that species can be 3 billion years old, it's zircon dating that does (which is contention #3). Pro didn't show that evolution must have been 3 billion years ago for other reasons. Con wins this contention.
Posted by salam.morcos 3 years ago
(Part 4)

3. Age of Earth

Pro argues that Uranium-lead zircon dating proves that the Earth is much older than 10,000 years old. Pro shows the method (which was not necessary) instead of its validity (e.g. it has been tested, accepted by most scientists"etc). This weakened his argument.

Con's rebuttal:

a. Con challenges the reliability of the method by citing the same source showing that the "apparent ages calculated from several minerals in the same host rock commonly have been in significant disagreement". I thought this was a fantastic defense for Con. Pro defends his argument by showing how this method is mostly reliable and that the standard uranium-lead zircon dating precision range is 0.1-1%. Con should show how these differences are actually billions of years apart. Pro wins this point.

b. Con argues that trace Pb cannot be guaranteed for this type of dating, and it's contradictory to use Pb-204 as a reference. As an unbiased reader, it wasn't very clear as why this would be an issue for the reliability of dating, and I wasn't going to read a book about it. On top of that Pro explain that Pb-204 is not used, so Pro wins this argument.

Pro wins this contention because his argument wasn't refuted.

Con's arguments:

Con presented many arguments (12 in total), and that's too much in a debate setting. This limits Pro's ability to properly rebut them. This costs Con points.

1. Testimony of earliest humans. I have no idea why this is even an argument! Pro's defense wasn't the greatest (calling it a myth), but he's right to demand evidence. Pro wins this point.

2. Timeline theories. I don't agree that this is a kritik, but this is not an argument. No one wins a point here.
Posted by salam.morcos 3 years ago
(Part 5)

3. Haldane's Dilemma. Con argues that there wasn't enough time for evolution, and thus he's challenging evolution itself. I ignored Con's use of Creationwiki. But Con makes a good argument by challenging that there wasn't time for certain creature to evolve naturally (He could have mentioned the Cambrian explosion, but since he didn't, I will have to ignore it). Pro shows how Huldane's dilemma used invalid assumptions. I think both sides made good points. But what Con basically did was challenge Pro's second contention, and this can't be considered a contention. BoP was shared. Let's assume for the sake of the argument that Con was right " Evolution was false. So what!? How does that mean that the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Pro could have attacked Con for this mistake, but he didn't. Tied.

4. Ancient civilizations are more intelligent. This is not even an argument and Pro's challenge was effective. Pro wins this point.

5. Death and decay issue for evolution. This is a decent argument by Con, and while Pro showed new theories, I'm inclined to consider this point as a tie. But again, Con is only challenging evolution. Was the debate about evolution, or about the age of the earth.

6. Dinosaurs didn't live millions of years ago. I agree with Pro that this is irrelevant, and I agree that he refuted well by citing radiometric dating. Even if the dinosaurs didn't live that long, if the rocks where they were found were older than 10,000 years, Pro would still win this argument.

7. Universal flood. What does this have to do with the age of the earth? I'm dismissing this point.

8. Natural selection. I was about to right a long explanation here, but again Con continues to try to prove Darwin is wrong. But it's irrelevant so I'm dropping this point, and all future points about evolution.

9. Age of sea-bed worms and the existence of soft tissue is irrelevant. Pro caught this so he wins this point.
Posted by salam.morcos 3 years ago
(Part 6)

10. Conscience and language couldn't have evolved. Again about evolution. Dismissed.

11. Baraminology " According to Pro, Baraminology assumes creationism is true. But without a source, this argument stands for Con.

12. Billions of years is not enough for evolution. Again about evolution. Dismissed.

Pro wins this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.