Young Earth Creationism Is Improbable

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]. Crystallization: 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. 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com... 6. http://tinyurl.com... 7. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... 8. Ibid. 9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 10. http://tinyurl.com... 11. http://en.wikipedia.org... 12. Ernst Mayr (1972), “Sexual selection and natural selection”, in Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man: the Darwinian Pivot. 13. http://www.pbs.org... 14. http://arxiv.org... 15. http://link.aps.org... 16. Ibid. 17. http://people.brandeis.edu... 18. http://evolutionwiki.org... 19. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu...; 20. http://www.berkeley.edu... 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. 22. http://en.wikipedia.org...