Evolution is more likely than Young Earth Creationism

That was a quick response! Here are my rebuttals for your opening arguments: REBUTTALS OF 1 "It--" (evolution) "--is backed by a plethora of scientific evidence as well as the church, and does not deny the existence of a God, whether it be a deistic, Jewish, or Christian interpretation." I have given many reasons that the Christian Bible disproves Evolution. "Young Earth Creationism takes its interpretation of the word of the Bible as a fact over all of science." Yes, but most of the interpretations in the Bible have science to back it up. I won't give examples since my opponent said no new arguments. My opponent thinks that the Bible promotes slavery. First, we need to remember that slavery in those ages was an aspect of the economic conditions of the day. In fact, most slave situations were not primarily due to a person being taken against his will, but because poor people either sold themselves or their children into slavery. In Leviticus 25:38-43, God says things that are in control by Him--but He gives some advice and suggestions for the people, too--saying how slavery could be done. Slavery was designed so that the poor could seek protection, this is noted in the passage of Leviticus. Verse 40 states "He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you". [1] REBUTTAL OF 1A "Fossils have been found that existed during the Cambrian period. These fossils have been dated to 500 million years old or more." Did you know that most of fossils which are "proven" to be millions of years old, aren't actually complete? Here's one bit of example: fossil of the largest flying bird was identified, to be 20-24 feet in width and which lived 25,000,000 years ago was found in South Carolina. Called 'Pelagornis sandersi.' The problem? The press hasn't gotten it public yet, but as you see the website [2] you'll find a picture of the fossil, some bones dull white and others bright white. I'm not much for paleoanthropology, but I read that the bright white represents the fossils actually found in the same spot with the same kinds. Yet people still fall for this story: "largest flying bird found!!!" without knowing that it's all evolutionary fraudulence. REBUTTAL FOR 1B and 1C "Rocks have been found dating billions of years old. The most significant of these was discovered in Canada in 1999. It was dated at just over 4 billion years old." I would like to say a thing or two about radiometric dating and how people came up with dates of a rock. One common dating system, Carbon-14, is said to disprove YEC. Most people, however, do not know that a critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating is used, and often. It has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. Keep in mind that this happens with a LOT of dating methods. [3] "Due to the Bible's interpretable nature, and due to the fact that the Bible never expressly states the age of the earth, only the lineages of humanity, the Bible is not a valid resource on the earth's age." Do you know how Creationists even use the Bible to interpret the age of the earth? Three ways: genealogies, prayer, and research. According to the both of us, these are pretty stable ways, and I have stated reasons they are safe to use in the last round. REBUTTAL OF 2A/2C There are reasons fossils are different in different layers of sediment. Darwin started a whole lot of research which led scientists to wonder if his hypothesis is credible or not. As I said last time, though, facts are facts but there is not one fact that can only be interpreted in just one way. I've explained, and I'm sure you've heard of fossils that prove to be from the Bible and Its times (although I'm not supposed to provide new arguments). When we examine the Evolutionary Tree we find that all of these species (or their counterparts) for the most part, are living today. So what really do we see in the fossil record? When we go to a museum of "natural history", we primarily find only fossils of extinct creatures. This of course gives the impression (especially with the commentary supplied) that things have been changing for the better over long periods of time, and that all creatures found in the fossil record are very old, outdated and extinct creatures that have long ago ceased to exist. But, if we were to see the whole of the fossil record, and we were not influenced from years of evolutionary training in the science class, and bombarded with evolutionary biased programs, journals and magazines etc, and if we were to go out into the field and examine the evidence for ourselves, I think we would come up with a totally different conclusion. So what we need to do, as the Bible instructs us to do, is to "Prove all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). [4] And might I point out that there is plenty of DNA proof leading towards YEC, in case you didn't know, besides the fact that there is a lot of evidence for God, in DNA too. [5] REBUTTAL OF 2B On the topic of animals and their DNA, behavior and appearances, my opponent: "However, slight differences appear which provide adaptive advantages. For example, the seagull and the pelican share very similar DNA, but the pelican has a wide bill for scooping up fish, while the seagull has a small bill for picking up insects, small fish and crustaceans, etc..." Exactly. Humans share 50% bound DNA with bananas, but do I look like a banana? My opponent later says: "The Homo heidelbergensis, the closest ancestor to the modern human...has quite similar DNA to us, looks almost like a human, and is obviously a human ancestor, yet it is not quite human." Like your analogy with the pelican and seagull, there are differences in personalities, too. The problem is, fossils do not explain what that particular creature's personality was (especially if it's "extinct" and not for sure an ancestor to us). The human family tree, you say, is almost impossible to disprove. Actually, most of the human fossils that Darwin and evolutionists based their "family tree" on have been refuted already. They were nothing but old types of apes that are extinct; some of them are larger and strongly built ("robust"), while others are smaller and delicate ("gracile"). [6] I apologize for the long rounds. Notice how my opponent had to put sources in the comments section! (I nearly ran out of characters too.) But alas, there is so much to be proven and it is surely hard to prove it all in a debate online. Still, I hope the readers got something out of it and were somewhat persuaded to think more of YEC. I wish good luck to my opponent during the next round and conclude my rebuttals. SOURCES: [1] http://www.comereason.org... [2] http://www.bbc.com... [3] http://answersingenesis.org... [4] http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org... [5] http://www.seekfind.net... [6] http://www.darwinismrefuted.com...