Evolution vs. Young Earth Creationism

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.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 really 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."quote from this finding ^ 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.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.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...