Evolution is more likely than Young Earth Creationism

Thanks for your rebuttals." 1) "I have given many reasons that the Christian Bible disproves Evolution." These have been rebutted. "My opponent thinks that the Bible promotes slavery." I never claimed this. I actually claimed the opposite. I cited that SOME people believed the Bible promotes slavery due to their interpretations of scripture. This exposes the problem that scripture can be incorrectly interpreted, and therefore is not a valid resource for scientific claims. 1A. "Did you know that most of fossils which are "proven" to be millions of years old, aren't actually complete?" My opponent is guilty of a non sequitur here. She claims that since skeletons are not always found in their entirety, they cannot be as old as scientists claim them to be. This is faulty reasoning. The bones found for this skeleton were tested for there age and found to be 25,000,000 years old. The availability of bones is in no way a detriment to the discovery of their age. Furthermore, enough bones were found to determine the size and shape of the bird. Several more complete skeletons have been found [1]. However, the incompleteness of most skeletons proves that sediment was probably not deposited rapidly through a great flood on all of these skeletons, but was rather slowly deposited. 1B & 1C. "If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years." 80,000 years is more than 10,000 years. While C-14 dating can, as my opponent stated, only date fossils to about 80,000 years, this still disproves YEC, as YEC bases itself on a 10,000 year timeframe. Furthermore, C-14 dating is not used in dating more ancient fossils, asteroids or rocks, as rocks and especially asteroids usually contain little organic material for C-14 dating to work with. These samples are typically dated using Uranium-238 dating, which is accurate up to billions of years [2]. Therefore my cited examples DO prove an old earth. In addition, my opponent's source claims that C-14 levels would falsely indicate older ages of fossils due to the great flood, which isn't true, as a flood would indicate C-14 dated ages to be less than the actual age of the fossil [3]. My opponent has not even offered evidence for a flood. It also fails to take into account scientific corrections for the C-14 dating system [3]. The source is therefore fallacious. 2. "...Three ways: genealogies, prayer, and research." -Genealogies do not disprove evolution, they merely are a historical record of humanity. Humanity did not exist before this point, and could not provide historical records. My opponent has also failed to provide a source for the ages of those in the Bible. -I'll let voters decide if prayer is an effective means of scientific discovery. -Unfortunately, all research given to me thus far is fallacious. 2A-2C. My opponent here is basically stating that although museums and the geologic record seem to indicate evolution is true, this is a byproduct of pro-evolution schooling. She then claims if we went out into the field ourselves, we would figure out something different. She ends with a Bible verse saying to "prove all things." This is ironic when you realize that the entire argument proved nothing. It simply states that evolution is incorrect, and the only reason we think it's correct is because we have been slammed with evolutionist propaganda. There is no evidence in her argument to suggest this claim is true. Therefore, it proves nothing. The source she cites, while denying evolution, affirms that certain animals are relatives of other animals. Well, how do you get a relative? By sharing a common ancestor, of course. If my opponent denies this, I ask her to name a blood relative she has that does not share a common ancestor. This article unwittingly affirms evolution. "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." The article cited here, once again, offers no proof. It basically asserts, over and over, that evolutionists are wrong because they deny God, and a naturalist approach is incorrect simply because it is. No proof of DNA supporting YEC whatsoever is given in this source. I have proven that evolutionism does not deny the existence of God, while YEC necessitates it. "Humans share 50% bound DNA with bananas, but do I look like a banana?" Humans also share 99.84% of DNA with Neanderthals [4] (not a direct ancestor, but one who shares a common ancestor) and roughly 96% with chimps [5]. This is obviously more than a banana, so it seems we are much more closely related to chimps and Neanderthals than bananas.This perfectly supports the "human family tree" idea, as chimps branched off far earlier than Neanderthals (as Neanderthals are part of the homo genus). "They were nothing but old types of apes that are extinct" Actually, if my opponent had fully read the article, she would've realized that these descriptors only refer to Australopithecus, the most primitive, apelike descendant of humanity. It also attempts to make the claim "Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens existed at the same time, so Neanderthals cannot be ancestors of Homo Sapiens." Unfortunately, this claim is null as Neanderthals were never claimed to be ancestors of Homo Sapiens, but rather share a common ancestor [6]. Therefore, this is another fallacious article. Conclusion My opponent's arguments stem only from the Bible and fallacious "science." She has failed to refute my points as of now and has not even proven evolution to be in conflict with Christianity, let alone less likely than YEC. Due to overwhelming scientific evidence, evolution is the more likely theory. Thanks for your arguments. I'm looking forward to next round. Good Luck! Sources [1] http://www.natureworldnews.com.... [2] http://www.universetoday.com... [3] http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au... [4] http://bionews-tx.com... [5] http://www.genome.gov... [6] http://humanorigins.si.edu...