Evolution vs Young Earth Creationism

Historical accuracy of the Bible My opponent says that if a book says something, that does not mean it is true. However, the Bible is not just any book. The Bible is the word of God. I believe that the Bible is infallible and evidence points toward the Bible being historically accurate. The Bible says the Earth was made in six days. I believe everything the Bible says is true. My examples with the Hanging Gardens and Hittites people were just to give evidence of the Bible's accuracy. Keep in mind these are only two of many other examples of the historical accuracy of the Biblical account. DNA supports Creation My opponent suggests that "they seemingly ignored the argument I presented earlier". If he is referring to his argument in Round 3, this is not true; it was addressed in Round 4. What I was trying to get to with this argument is, God made chimps different from humans. The secular arguments for chimps and humans being related 98% is simply not true since the 98% is based on comparison of a PART of the human and ape genomes. Furthermore, he says he "never brung up DNA evidence as an argument for Evolution in this debate". I never brought up Transitionary Fossils as an argument for Young Creationism because it is simply an idea we do not support;nevertheless, I rebutted why young creationists don't agree with the evolutionist idea of "Transitionary Fossils". Earth's magnetic field My opponent doesn't realize that I have referenced research showing the earth's magnetic field is young in round two. Dinosaur Blood The fact IS that Mary Schweitzer and her team found red blood cells in dinosaurs. However, it IS NOT a fact that it has been proven how or if iron can preserve these red blood cells for more than a few thousand years. Transitionary Fossils Transitional fossils are "the remains of those creatures which should be found ‘in-between’ one kind of creature and another kind." [4] There is a major flaw with the transitional fossil belief. The fact is, there are some missing links that have never been found between kinds. Perhaps, the best known is the missing link between man and ape. Remember the Piltdown Man hoax? That is probably the closest we have got to finding the missing link between ape and man. Millions of years My opponent has admitted that the uranium lead method of radiometric dating is based on assumptions that are not factuall. By the way, Isochron dating is a type of radiometric dating. This type of dating is also based on flawed assumptions. Y.F. Zheng of the Geochemical Institute at the University of Gottingen in Germany, wrote this in the international journal Chemical Geology: "‘The Rb-Sr isochron method has been one of the most important approaches in isotopic geochronology. But some of the basic assumptions of the method are being questioned at the present time. As first developed the method assumed a system to have: (1) the same age; (2) the same initial 87Sr/86Sr ratio; and (3) acted as a closed system. Meanwhile, the goodness of fit of experimental data points in a plot of 87Sr/86Sr vs. 87Rb/86Sr served as a check of these assumptions. However, as the method was gradually applied to a large range of geological problems, it soon became apparent that a linear relationship between 87Sr/86Sr and 87Rb/86Sr ratios could sometimes yield an anomalous isochron which had no distinct geological meaning. A number of anomalous isochrons have been reported in the literature and various terms have been invented, such as apparent isochron (Baadsgaard et al., 1976), mantle isochron and pseudoisochron (Brooks et al., 1976a, b), secondary isochron (Field and Ra- Heim, 1980). inherited isochron (Roddick and Compston, 1977), source isochron (Compston and Chappell, 1979), erupted isochron (Betton, 1979; Munksgaard, 1984), mixing line (Bell and Powell, 1969; Faure, 1977; Christoph, 1986) and mixing isochron (Zheng, 1986; Qin, 1988). Even a suite of samples which do not have identical ages and initial 87Sr/86Sr ratios can be fitted to isochrons, such as aerial isochrons (Kohler and Muller-Sohnius, 1980; Haack et al., 1982).’3" Organisms arranged in chronological order My opponent argues that my explanation for organisms being arranged in chronological order is flawed because if it were to be true, then humans and dinosaurs would have been buried together. However, dinosaurs being buried below humans is most likely due to the fact that humans are significantly more intelligent than dinosaurs and possibly managed to survive parts of the flood and reached higher ground. That is, until the flood reached that higher ground. Continental Drift Genesis 7:11 states "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." My opponent insists that nowhere in the Bible does it state that seismic activity caused the flood; however, there is evidence pointing toward seismic activity, as well as, volcanic activity contributing to "breaking up" the "fountains of the great deep" or causing the flood. The continents shifting due to seismic activity is a theory as to how the continents shifted rapidly. Natural Selection My opponent says that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are literally the same thing; however, not by the way Creationists define the terms. The term 'micro-evolution', as defined by Creationists, is "variation within the Biblical kind". [3] On the other hand, the term 'macro-evolution', as defined by Creationists, is "the changing of one Biblical kind into another kind". Size of Noah's Ark My opponent probably should have done a little more research before saying Creationists believe all living species of animals today boarded the Ark during Noah's time. Starlight There are major flaws in my opponent's argument for light years somehow 'disproving' Creation. First, a light year is used to measure distance (not time). [1] Second, how do we know for sure that the speed of light today has been the same in the past? Actually, there is evidence pointing towards the speed of light slowing down;this research was led by Australian theoretical physicist Paul Davies of Sydney's Macquarie University. [2] Lastly (and most importantly), we cannot base arguments on assumptions, such as, the speed of light remaining constant. Where My Opponent Gets It Wrong and Why I Did Better To begin with, my opponent says I did not follow the format properly; however, he did not make the format clear. In fact, all he stated was 'everything else' and 'everything' for rounds three, four, and five. I had not debated the arguments made in round 3; therefore, this is the round I debated last. I feel that each rounds arguments should be addressed. In this round, as in previous rounds, I am following the structure of the debate ("Round 5: Everything and explain why we did better than our opponent ). My opponent claims I have used unreliable sources. This is not true. You cannot say a source is unreliable and/or unscientific for not being a scientific journal or a university. If this were to be true, then information from news outlets such as CNN or Reuters would not be reliable (since both of them are neither scientific journals nor universities). Lastly, my opponent claims I have 'dodged much of his points made'. I have technically not dodged any of his claims. I have responded to all of his main arguments for evolution. Perhaps I have not responded to every argument he has made within every main argument, however, this does not mean my opponent can say I have dodged his arguments. I believe I have done a better job than my opponent for multiple reasons. One being, my opponent goes on the attack during the debate (he has accused me of using 'unscientific' and 'unreliable' sources). I have not attacked any of his sources. Another being, my opponent clearly does not understand where Creationists stand. For example, my opponent has stated that Creationists believe EVERY single living species of animal present today boarded the ark. I understand where Evolutionists stand. I am not saying Evolutionists believe in monkey-to-man evolution, like my opponent is saying Creationists believe every single living species of animal present today boarded the ark. Lastly, my opponent accuses me of 'quote mining'. This is a term usually used by evolutionists in an attempt to justify that a quote of a well-known evolutionist confessing to one or more of the many weaknesses of the evolutionary paradigm is being taken out of context when in most cases it is surely not. Links [1] http://creationtoday.org... [2] http://creation.com... [3] http://www.scriptureoncreation.org... [4] http://creation.com...