Evolution vs Young Earth Creationism

Transitionary Fossils One evidence of Evolution is transitionary fossils/skeletons found. [1] We can see proof of organisms changing over time by looking at transitionary fossils. Here, we can see that skull A (Pan troglodytes) is one of the earliest human primates, and the skull is around 2.7 million years old. Skull N represents modern-day humans. The fossils are arranged in near chronological order, skull B (Australopithecus africanus) is around 2.6 million years old. Skull D (Homo habilis) is around 1.9 million years old. Skull I (Homo heidelbergensis) is around 300,000 years old and etc. We can easily see that the skulls smoothly transition, which proves Darwin's theory that organisms change over time to what they are now. According to creation theory, all organisms were created in the beggining and they didn't change much over time. If this was true, how could you explain why fossils of old primates don't exist anymore? From a creationist viewpoint, I could only imagine that the primates were killed during the flood. However, why is it that there were transitionary species? Further more, you don't need scientific dating methods to see the differences between the fossils. We can clearly see that the earlier fossils look older and less complete (hence the filled with blue spaces.) The newer fossils look smoother and more uniform. If dating methods were innacurate, why would the dating methods show that the skulls with lower cranial capacity were older? How is it also possible for change like this to happen in such little time? Human primates are not the only example of this either. We can see evolutionary change with old fish skeletons/fossils. This is an example of a fish that existed 380 million years ago, the panderichthys. We can clearly see it sort of looks like a reptile. It is likely one of the ancestors of modern-day reptiles. If creation was true, how could you explain the transitionary fossils? If this was a result of inbreeding, how could a fish reproduce with a reptile? [2] 2. Millions of years There are many dating methods including radiometric dating. One example is carbon dating. Carbon 14 (C14) isn't very stable and has a 'half-life' of around 5730 years. Carbon 14 comes from Nitrogen 14 in the upper atmosphere which is converted to C14 through cosmic rays. [3+5] This chart shows how we can use the half-life of C14 to calculate the age. Carbon 14 decays into Nitrogen 14 (N14), scientists can carefully examine the ratio of C14 to N14 to calculate the age. For example, a fossil with around 25% C14 and 75% N14 would be around 11.4K years old as evident by the chart. Carbon dating would be inefficient for fossils as old as millions of years, or very young rocks ranging from a few hundred years. For calculating the ages of older rocks, we can use other elements with longer or shorter half-lives. [4] For example, the 'parent' and 'daughter' elements Uranium-235 and Lead-207 can be used to date rocks that are a few billions of years old due to the long half-life. From Uranium and Lead, one of the oldest rocks we found with that was 4.4 billion years old. [6]If there are rocks this old, it's certain that the minimum age of Earth must be around 4.4 billion years. The Young Earth theory implies that the Earth is only 6000 years old. This would make absolutely no sense considering that there are rocks older than the "age of the Earth." The burden of proof is on New Life Christian to disprove radiometric dating, and give clear evidence of the Earth being 6000 years old rather than 4.5 billion. Scientists use radiometric dating all the time, it would be ridiculous to say it's inefficient. Scientists have proven it's efficiency and radiometric dating is commonly used. Just as another example, a norway spruce found in Sweden was calculated to be around 9550 years old, older than the "age of the Earth." [7] Organisms arranged in chronological orderYoung Earth Creation insists that the fossils were thrown around by a worldwide flood. http://www.prehistoricplanet.com...Fossils and bones are however arranged in chronological order. The older species are deeper down and the younger ones are higher up. Could this be a pure coincidence? Continental Drift All the continents perfectly fit together which is one indicator that the Earth used to have one large landmass and one large ocean. Land doesn't drift much faster than 10 centimeters per year. [14] If the Earth has exissted for 6000 years, how could the continents drift so quickly away from each other? Natural SelectionA process of Darwin's theory of Evolution includes natural selection, or 'survival of the fittest.' [8] Natural Selection is simply the organisms more 'fit' for their enviornment surviving, while the others die out. To better explain it, I will use a picture.We can imagine that organisms would appear in a cold enviornment, each colored dot represents a different species. The 'cooler' colored dots represent species better fit for cold enviornments. The species with 'warmer' colored dots represent species better fit for warmer enviornments. The species meant for warmer enviornments would die out, and the better fit ones would thrive leading to the population looking like this: We can see now there are more green, purple and blue ones while the less fit organisms died out. As time would pass, the population of the less fit organisms would die out, and the more fit organisms would increase in population percentage. We can see that the purple organisms in the beggining were the most fit, thus leading to them dominating the cold enviornment. An example of natural selection in reality would be Homo Sapiens (modern-day humans) and Neanderthals. The Neanderthals and Homo Sapeins lived at the same time around a hundred thousand years ago [9+10]. However, the Neanderthals declined in population and are no longer in existance. Homo Sapiens on the other hand still lived to this day (duh). This would be an example of natural selection, the homo sapiens had a better brain and their brains were more social as well. Thus making communication easier than the Neanderthals, a lot of the Neanderthal brain was dedicated to vision and not other important aspects. Neanderthal skulls have been found and proven to exist. Another example of Natural Selection would be the Dinosaurs. [11] The Dinosaurs had died out ever since a comet or asteroid struck the Earth. Mammals on the other hand were more fit for the enviornment, and they could survive the extinction and thrive while the dinosaurs died out.If creation were true, how could there be species that went extinct, while others still survived to this day?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. Starlight A light year is the distance in which light travels in a year. There are plenty of stars and galaxies found which are past 6000 light years. Further more, our galaxy alone is 100,000 light years wide. If the Earth was 6000 years old, we couldn't tell how big our galaxy was, nor could we see other galaxies. Light can't travel faster than a light-year in a year. This alone disproves the young-earth theory. [14] 1. http://www.talkorigins.org...2. http://www.devoniantimes.org...3. http://www.physlink.com...4. http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov...;5. http://scienceline.ucsb.edu...;6. http://www.livescience.com...;7. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...8. http://www.indiana.edu...9. http://humanorigins.si.edu...10. http://www.pbs.org...11. http://www.livescience.com...12. http://www.nytimes.com...13. http://hubpages.com...14. http://www.ibri.org...;