Creationism (Pro) vs Evolution (Con)

Transitionary FossilsCreationism states that one species can not over time form into another species. However, there are transitionary fossils which say otherwise. In this picture (1), skull A (Pan troglodytes) is dated to be 2.7 million years old. Skull M (post-modern Homo Sapiens) is dated to be 30,000 years old, with skull N representing modern day homo sapiens (humans). As you start from A, the fossils start getting younger as you progress and more human-like. Even without scientific dating, one can see that the older skulls look older and more 'broken down' to the contrary of newer skulls.Creation implies that humans existed since the beginning of creation. This however is false, the oldest known fossils of Homo Sapiens have not been older han 200,000 years (2). To the contrary, a Homo Rudolfensis skull (a human private) has been found dating back to 1.9 million years old. Not to note that human primates even older than that exist and have been found. (3)This is not true for humans, but is also true for other species. (4+5) The Panderichthys is believed to be a transitionary species from aquatic fish to modern-day reptiles/amphibians. s://nondiscovery.files.wordpress.com......; alt="" />There is a correlation with transitionary species, as you progress the fossils slowly happen to start looking more and more different, until a new species comes. This is very strong evidence for Evolution, as Creationary theory implies that one species can't slowly transition to another.Size of Noah's ArkNoah's Ark was built around 6000 years ago according to young earth creationism. The amount of modern species in existance today is around 8 million (possibly more if you take the bacteria and micro organisms into consideration) Since there were two of every animal on Noah's ark, that would mean Noah's Ark would need to harbor 16 million different species. The Titanic was the world's largest ship built in the early 20th century, and technology back then was likely much lower than modern-day technology. So Noah's Ark was likely smaller than the Titanic. So how could Noah's Ark possibly fit 16 million different species while having them survive and be cared for? If it was lower than 16 million, how could we get to 16 million species today in just 6000 years without Evolution? We have never witnessed any species being created by god. Dating methodsRadiometric dating is a commonly used dating methods used by scientists to determine the age of fossils and/or rocks (6 7). Radiometric dating involves a parent and daughter element to be used. The parent atom has a half life; this half life is defined as the amount of time it takes for 50% of the current parent element to decay into the daughter element. Nitrogen (N14) and Carbon (C14) are examples of parent and daughter elements.C14 has a half life of 5730 years. This would be "one half life." After another 5730 years or half life, the carbon 14 would half again making the overall percentage to 25% of the original C14 content, making the N14 content three times as high. Carbon dating would be highly inefficient for rocks as old as 100,000 years. To calculate significantly old rocks, other isotopes are used. This chart shows several other elements and their half life in billions of years. Uranium-235 to Lead-207 has a half life long enough to measure rocks in which are billions of years old. If a young earth were true, Pro must disprove radiometric dating since it's been used to find rocks and fossils older than the age of the Earth.True age of the EarthThe oldest rock on Earth is a piece of zircon that is 4.4 billion years old. (8) This is rougly close to the estimate of Earth being 4.6 billion years old. While one may suspect that there may be interference from a rock this old; the findings have shown the dating used was accurate enough:"The key finding, that lead atoms stick close to home inside this primeval zircon, means age estimates based on uranium-lead dating techniques are accurate, the researchers report. The lead hasn't wiggled around enough to throw off the ages. A typical age measurement, made with a machine called an ion probe, zaps zircon segments that are thousands of times larger than the damage clusters. "This careful piece of work should settle the debate because it shows that indeed there is some mobility of lead, which was hypothesized to result in dates that were too old, but the scale of mobility is nanometers," said Samuel Bowring, a geochemist at MIT, who was not involved in the study. "Even the smallest volumes analyzed with the ion probe average out the heterogeneities," or variations within the zircon. The new atom-probe technique, while extremely laborious, can also be used to address questions of reliability at other sites where extremely old rocks have been found, the researchers said. [Have There Always Been Continents?] "Good zircons are forever, and what this does is help us separate the wheat from the chaff in a way we could never do before," Valley said." StarlightYoung Earth Creation theory implies the Earth was created at the same time as the Universe. However, Starlight has been found that is way older than the supposed 6000 years age of the Earth. A light year is the distance light travels in one year. The Milky Way Galaxy alone is suspected to be approximately 100,000 light years in diameter. (9) Scientists can map out what the Milky Way is suspected to look like. If the Earth were 6000 years old, one could only examine stars within a 6000 light year distance. This is not true to any extent. The Crab nebula is over 6200 light years from Earth as one example. Another example is the Andromeda Galaxy (11) (over 2 million lightyears) which can be seen outside at a clear sky with one's own eye. Young Earth Creation can not account for objects in space seen this far, hence proving the old age of the Earth at billions of years.Newton's 3rd law of physics Isaac Newton's 3rd law of physics states that "an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force. An object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."While this may not necessarily be evidence for evolution, the 3rd law of physics does disprove many attempts at attacking radiometric dating, the speed of light, or any other "constants." Creationists for example, may point out that the speed of light may have not remained the same. This may be done in attempt to explain how starlight could go past 6000 lightyears in just 6000 years. When we take Newton's 3rd law of physics into account however, there would need to be an outside force acting upon light. An outside force would also be needed to change the decay rate of specific rocks, which is taken into account when using the method of radiometric dating. So due to this reason, my opponent will need to prove the existence of an outside force that caused starlight to travel faster than a light year. Otherwise, the starlight argument would directly disprove a young Earth. Chronological OrderBefore I finish my arguments, I would like to present one last piece of evidence proving Evolution. Fossils are arranged in a near-perfect chronological order. Creationary theory can not account for this as the order of organisims is in line with Evolution. Human fossils can not be found as deep as fossils of dinosaurs or ancient invertebrates. If a giant flood were to happen as stated by creationary thinking, the fossils and bones would have to be unevenly thrown around in no particular order. In addition, the age of such fossils and bones has been determined by taking use of specific dating methods, mainly radiometric dating. The fossil record can be interpreted as a 'graph' of the evolution of species. This 'graph' is nowhere near in line of the young earth creationist model none the less.ConclusionYoung Earth Creation goes against many recent scientific findings and distorts what we know as Science in many fields. Evolution on the other hand is far more consistent with modern scientific findings.I now look forward to the next round. 1.2. https://www.sciencenews.org......3. http://humanorigins.si.edu......4. http://eweb.furman.edu......5. http://chem.tufts.edu......6. http://scienceline.ucsb.edu......7. http://www.physlink.com......8. http://www.livescience.com......9. http://www.ibri.org......10. http://www.nasa.gov......11. http://earthsky.org......