Resolved: The Theory of Evolution is a sound theory of how life developed on Earth.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 7 votes and with 20 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
1. Opening Statements
2. Rebuttal and Questions
4. Closing Arguments and Summary
1. No round forfeits
2. It should go without saying, but keep it respectful
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. The BoP is evenly shared.
1. Theory: In science, a theory is "an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing" 
2. Evolution: At the most basic level, evolution is defined as “the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.” Consequently, “genetic changes over many generations ultimately result in the emergence of new and different species from a single ancestral species”  As a result, “all known living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale” 
3. Sound: Based on strong scientific evidence
3. Fairbanks, Daniel J. Evolving: The Human Effect and Why it Matters.
“The virus had to mutate into a form that could overcome natural immunity to SIV in humans. Mammals have a gene that encodes a protein called tetherin. This protein has evolved to confer resistance to retroviruses by tethering them to the inside of the cell they infect and preventing the virus from replicating. For SIV cpz to successfully infect a human, it had to overcome the suppressive effect of human tetherin.The SIV cpz evolved by acquiring two anti-tetherin genenes called nef and vpu, one from each of the original monkey viruses that fused to form the chimpanzee virus. The nef gene mutated to overcome chimpanzee tetherin, but the vpu gene remained essentially insert. When the virus jumped to humans, human tetherin was so different that the nef gene could not overcome human tetherin. Instead, the vpu gene mutated to overcome human tetherin, allowing HIV-1 group M to infect humans.A mutation in a second gene, called gag, was also required for the chimpanzee virus to jump to humans. Interestingly, a case in which HIV infected a chimpanzee is known, and the gag gene of this virus mutated back to the original form in the chimpanzee to successfully re-infect its ancestral host.”
Archaeopteryx is probably the first transitional fossil found. It was found only a few years after Darwin published The Origins of the Species. As noted by TalkOrigins, it has both bird and dinosaur like features that are hard to explain away .The main bird traits are:· long external nostrils.· quadrate and quadratojugal (two jaw bones) not sutured together.· palatine bones that have three extensions.· all teeth lacking serrations.· large lateral furrows in top rear body of the vertebraeAnd the reptilian features are:
- no bill
- teeth on premaxilla and maxilla bones
- nasal opening far forward, separated from the eye by a large preorbital fenestra (hole)
- neck attached to skull from the rear
- center of cervical vertebrae that have simple concave articular facets
- long bony tail; no pygostyle
- ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes, and not articulated with the sternum
- sacrum that occupies six vertebrae
- small thoracic girdle
- metacarpals free (except third metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible
- claws on three unfused digits
- pelvic girdle and femur joint shaped like those of archosaurs in many details
- bones of pelvis unfusedand over 100 other differences from birds
defines evolution as, “The process by which different kinds of living organisms
are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth” . As acknowledged through the use of
the word ‘developed’ in the above definition, Darwinian evolution requires that mutations increase genetic information over time. The human genome has 3.2
billion base pairs  while single celled organisms have as few as 160
thousand . In order for this single cell to evolve into a human, the genome
would have to increase in length by a factor of 20,000. Furthermore, Darwinian
evolution must also produce new completely original biological structures
(lungs, eyes, flukes etc.). All changes
that result in a loss in genetic information are deteriorating the organism;
therefore, these sorts of changes are the opposite of Darwinian evolution.
evolution is neither the only nor the most scientific explanation for the
biodiversity observed in creatures today. Natural selection, speciation, and epigenetics
are all examples of scientifically observed mechanisms that create biological
variety through the sorting and loss of
existing genetic information. The effects of these scientific forces are at best indifferent to Darwinian evolution,
and frequently result in the loss of genetic
information causing complex organisms to become simpler.
Introduction: Darwin tried to answer a fundamentally genetic question without any knowledge of genetics. Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859 and yet DNA wasn’t even discovered until the 1950’s, nearly 100 years later. Darwin admitted, “Our ignorance of the laws of variation is profound” . Evolution succeeds or fails at the genetic level, and yet Darwin, by his own admission, was basing his theory on a profound ignorance of genetics. Darwinian evolution is based on the premise that mutations cause information to increase and develop over time, and yet, the field of genetics now overwhelmingly supports that the genome is very complex, highly functional, and consistently deteriorating.
I. The scientific demise of the Chimp-Man story:
- The Demise of ‘Junk DNA’: The evolutionary agenda has had profound effects on
the assumptions made regarding DNA. John Mattrick claims, “the presence of
non-protein-coding or so-called ‘junk DNA’ that comprises >90% of the human
genome is evidence for the accumulation of evolutionary debris by blind Darwinian
evolution, and argues against intelligent design, as an intelligent designer
would presumably not fill the human genetic instruction set with meaningless
information” . Twenty-six years later the ENCODE Project Consortium
analyzed the genome and concluded that, “These data enabled us to assign
biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the
well-studied protein-coding regions” . ENCODE Lead Analysis
Coordinator Ewan Birney followed this release by claiming that, “It’s likely
that 80 percent will go to 100 percent” . Most if not all of the genome is
functional; therefore, evolutionists were terribly wrong in declaring that most
of the genome is ‘junk’.
- DNA Similarities
Debunked: The ENCODE project found that
approximately 50% of the functional non-coding (junk) DNA compared in the 23
different mammals studied was not conserved (not similar between species) . It is now clear that a comprehensive DNA
comparison between apes and humans is in order. Evolutionists typically claim
that ape and human genetics are 96-98% similar; however, these stats only
compare 2% of the genome. Conveniently, this 2% of the genome happens to be the
most similar 2%. When the entire genome is compared the result is profoundly
different. A study published by Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins in the peer reviewed
journal, Answers Research Journal revealed that, “Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most
optimal sequence-slice conditions” . This really should come
as no surprise since in 2002 evolutionist Roy Britten indicated a genome-wide
similarity of about 70% between chimpanzees and humans . Human DNA is
profoundly different from chimpanzee DNA; therefore, Darwinian evolution proves
to be terribly wrong in its predictions once again.
- An Outrageous Number of
Mutations: Considering that chimpanzee and
human DNA is about 30% different and that there are about 3.2 billion base
pairs in the human genome , there are approximately 960 million base pair
differences between chimps and humans. Dr David Dewitt examined a sample size
of 125 million of these base pair differences and found that, “there are about
40 million total separate mutation events that would separate the two species
in the evolutionary view” . Therefore, in order to account for the entire
30% of genetic disparity between chimps and humans roughly 307 million
mutations would have to occur with the estimated 300,000 generations  since
crimps and humans supposedly divided from their chimp like ancestors. This
would require an average of 1,023 mutations to be locked in with each
generation. This staggeringly large number of mutations being ‘locked in’ in
such a small number of generations creates a problem known as “Haldane’s
- Haldan’s Dilemma
explained: After extensively studying the
rate at which mutations can be locked into a population, Dr John Sanford
explains, “Haldane realized that even if there was an abundant and continuous
supply of beneficial mutations, natural selection must be very limited in its
ability to amplify such mutations to the point of where they are ‘fixed’ within
a sizeable population. He calculated that for a mammalian population such as
man, given an evolutionary population size of 10,000, only about 1,000
beneficial mutations could be selectively fixed within 6 million years…. That scenario would require roughly 1,000 independent beneficial
fixations per generation. Haldane said this was impossible: he estimated that
at best there should be only about 1 fixation every 300 generations. This
problem has been extensively investigated by Walter ReMine, who has used an
entirely independent mathematical formulation of the problem and has reached
exactly the same conclusions …. Our experiments strongly validate the work
of Haldane and ReMine. We see that, depending on the specific
settings, only a few hundred to a few thousand selective fixations can
realistically occur during 300,000 human generations (about 6 million years)… . We are very confident that our numerical
simulation experiments are the best way to understand this problem, Between
Haldane, ReMine, and our own work, the matter is clearly settled. This
means the ape-to-man story is not
even remotely feasible” . This
problem is also recognized by evolutionists Rick Durrett and Deena
Schmidt who calculated the time it would take for two codependent mutations to
become fixed in a human population at “>100 million years” .
II. Dual Coding Genes: It has been found that some genes code for multiple unrelated proteins. Evolutionist Sen-Yu Chung examined the implications of dual coding and found that, “Dual coding is a costly arrangement because it limits the flexibility of amino acid composition. A silent change in one frame [coding sequence for one protein] is almost always guaranteed to be amino acid changing in the other…. Here we show that although dual coding is nearly impossible by chance, a number of human transcripts contain overlapping coding regions” . Since dual coding both (a) “limits the flexibility of amino acid composition”, and is (b) “nearly impossible by chance”, dual coding genes should not be created or favored for selection under evolution; therefore, why is dual coding abundant in nature?
III. Genetic Entropy (genetic decay) – The Strongest Argument Yet: I began my debate by bringing a frequently ignored but all two crucial distinction to light. Darwinian evolution claims that mutations must result in a net increase in information over time. Only through an increase in information can a single-celled organism ever hope to become a human. Evolution and Genetic Entropy are mutually exclusive. If the genome decays over time then Darwinian evolution is the product of wishful thinking.
- Something for Nothing – The
Darwinian Dream: Dr. Jerry Bergman studied a
sample size of 453,732 mutations in search for a mutation possessing the
ability to increase the genome. He found that a mere 4 in 10,000 of these
mutations were “beneficial”, and after a review of these “beneficial” mutations
it was found that these mutations were only beneficial in a very narrow sense,
since they all involved a loss of function (loss of information). . Dr
Bergman did not find a single mutation possessing the ability to increase the
genome as required for Darwinian evolution. One of the largest studies by Adam
Boyko PhD et al, found that 27-29% of amino-acid-changing mutations are neutral
or nearly neutral, 30-42% are moderately deleterious, and nearly all the remainder
(~36%) are highly deleterious or lethal . This study was also unable to
identify any mutations possessing the characteristics required for evolution.
It is now clear that mutations capable of increasing the genome are quite rare
(perhaps nonexistent), but, assuming they do exist, let’s see if natural
selection is capable of weeding out all the garbage and stacking these quite
rare mutations (possessing the ability to add genetic information to the
genome) on each other from generation to generation.
Hail Natural Selection Our Savior?: Natural selection is not an all powerful force. It is now known that natural selection possesses multiple limitations that severely hamper its abilities to produce the results claimed by evolution:
- Cost of Selection Limitation: Natural selection is highly limited on how many of a
population it can kill off, since perpetual mass homicide will inevitably lead
to extinction. John Sanford explains that, “For the human population, it
becomes clear that that the maximum part of our population which can be ‘spent’
for all selection purposes is much less than 33%, and, according to Haldane,
might realistically be in the range of 10%” . Since 66-78% of all mutations
are deleterious, natural selection can only hope to remove a maximum of half of
these damaging mutations created each generation. The rare occurrences of
mutations that add genetic information (as required by evolution) would be
crushed under the massive load of deleterious mutations accumulating in the
population each generation. Natural selection simply can’t remove the
deleterious mutations fast enough to give evolution a chance.
- The Package Deal Limitation: Mutations can’t be selected individually by natural
selection; rather, each organism is an inseparable package deal. John Stanford
studied this issue in depth and concluded that, “the number of all types of new
mutations, including conversions, must be much more than 100 per person per generation.
These mutations, which include many macro-mutations, must clearly change
thousands of nucleotides per person per generation” . Since 66-78% of
mutations are deleterious, even if a human were to receive a beneficial
information-increasing mutation, this mutation would have 66 to 78 deleterious
mutations stacked on top of it before being passed on to the next generation.
Indeed, any increase to the genome one mutation can hope to achieve would be
easily overwhelmed by the vast number of deleterious mutations, even within a
Conclusion: Darwin was completely ignorant of the scientific laws of genetic inherency, and yet he made predictions about how genetics work. Darwinian evolution predicts highly dysfunctional genomes developing to a more complex state, and yet, the scientific evidence supports that genetics are highly functional and in a state of perpetual decay. Indeed, the genetic science is yielding results completely opposite of those required to support Darwinian evolution. Science demonstrates that the genome is complex, efficient, and consistently deteriorating over time. The only reasonable conclusion is that Darwinian evolution is not scientifically tenable.
- Darwin, Charles, 1809-1882. On
The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or Preservation
of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. London :John Murray, 1859.
- Tomkins, Jeffrey, “Comprehensive
Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of
70%” Answers Research Journal 6:1 (2013): p63.
- Dewitt, David, “What about the Similarity Between
Human and Chimp DNA.” The New Answers Book 3, Master Books, Green Forest, (2016): p102.
- ReMine, Walter, “Cost theory and the cost of
substitution – a clarification” The
In-depth Journal of Creation 19:1
- Dr. Sanford, John, Genetic Entropy. FMS Publications,
- Bergman, Jerry, “Research on the deterioration of the
genome and Darwinism: why mutations result in degeneration of the genome” Intelligent design Conference, Biola University. (April 22-23, 2001).
- Dr. Sanford ref. 12, p64.
- Dr. Sanford ref. 12, p38.
Speciation Is and is Not:Pro falsely equates speciation to
evolution. Speciation simply refers to which genetic traits are passed on or
not passed on to the next generation. Dog breeders use speciation to narrow the
gene pool in dog populations. Mutts generally possesses a much richer variety
of genetic characteristics than their purebred counterparts and, therefore, can
produce offspring with widely varied characteristics. Dog breeders use
inbreeding and artificial selection to remove undesired genetic characteristics
from a population. This produces breeds which can only produce certain
characteristics (like floppy ears or stubby snouts for example) because these are the only genetic characteristics
that breed possesses. If this had occurred in nature, it is likely we would
consider Chihuahuas a different species from Great Danes (see picture here);
however, these two ‘species’ clearly diversified through loss of genetic
characteristics rather than the Darwinian claimed development of new information.
This process is referred to as speciation; because, (through the process of
removing different genetic characteristics in a given population) different
populations of the same kind can express enough genetic separation to merit
subcategorizing into species. Darwinian evolution requires that information be
added over time; therefore, the
scientifically proven process of speciation is the opposite of Darwinian
Eve:The theory that mankind originated from a mitochondrial Eve about 200,000 years
ago originates from research done in 1988  and was calculated using faulty mutation
rates which have since been proven to be completely wrong. As evolutionist Ann
Gibbons stated in 1998, “Mitochondiral DNA appears to mutate much faster than
expected, prompting new DNA forensic procedures and raising troubling questions
about the dating of evolutionary events…. Researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial
Eve” … lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago... Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6,000 years old” . Alex
Williams concurs with this conclusion saying, “We are unable to reproduce
ourselves without making multiple genome copying errors every generation. As a
result our genomes are decaying towards extinction from copy errors alone….
When decay in copy fidelity is projected backwards in time it reaches
perfection around 4,000 BC, and when projected forwards, extinction from copy
errors alone occurs in thousands, not millions, of years” . Clearly
mitochondrial DNA provided strong evidence against Darwinian evolution.
Differences:I cited two high quality peer reviewed
journals in my opening statement which both put the human-chimp DNA
similarities at 70%, a far cry from Pro’s claimed 95-99%. Pro’s sources studied
a mere 2% of the genome whereas the ENCODE project encompassed analysis of 100% of the
human genome. This project included “more than 30 research groups and more than
400 scientists” . Clearly the alleged 95-99% similarity is
simply an exercise in lying with statistics.
Time Problem:I called Pro’s bluff on the supposed ability
of chimp-human evolution to occur within 6 million years (or 8 million if Pro
likes). As stated above, evolutionary time frames dictate that about 1,000
mutations must be fixed per generation to accomplish ape-man evolution.
Realistically the mutation fixation rate is 1 mutation per 300 generations
(this was verified by three independent studies cited above). At this rate,
ape-man evolution would take nearly one-trillion
years a far cry from Pro’s supposed 7-8 million years.
- ERV’s – Another Evolutionary Prediction Bites the Dust:Science is now catching up with the ill founded assumption
that 8% of the genome is the result of endogenous retroviruses inserting
sequences of DNA into the genetic code. Shaun Doyle accounts how, “The term
‘endogenous retrovirus’ is a bit of a misnomer. There are numerous instances
where small transposable elements thought to be endogenous retroviruses have
been found to have functions, which invalidates the ‘random retrovirus
insertion’ claim…. Moreover, researchers have recently identified an important
function for a large proportion of the human genome that has been labeled as
ERVs. They act as promoters, starting transcription at alternative starting
points, which enables different RNA transcripts to be formed from the same DNA
sequence” . Once again, Darwinian evolution manifests its inability to
produce accurate predictions.
Recombination:It is important to note that viruses have
the ability to exchange genetic code. William Fleischmann explains that,
“Recombination involves the exchange of genetic material between two related
viruses during coinfection of a host cell.”. Rather than creating
information, this process simply allows a virus to borrow existing information
from another organism.
or Devolution?:Dr Carl Wieland examined the mutations leading
to the rise of HIV and concluded that the net effect of these mutations lead to,
“only a horizontal or even a negative change in informational content, and
therefore does not relate to the sort of evolution postulated generally. It
certainly does not involve any increase in functional complexity” .
Resistance at What Cost?:HIV expert Veronica Miller PhD experimented
with the effect antibiotic resistance has on the fitness of HIV, “by ceasing
all antiviral drug treatments to a patient. Without the drug, the few surviving
original (‘wild’) types [of HIV] that had infected the patient could grow more
easily. It turned out that they easily out-competed the vast numbers of
resistant forms…. the wild types were also more dangerous—more efficient than
the new strains.” . The mutant antibiotic resistant strains of HIV are far
inferior to the original wild strains demonstrating that these mutations are
highly detrimental to the general health and fitness of the virus. Rather than
supporting evolving to a higher state, these mutations represent genetic decay.
- A Very
Poor Choice of Examples:Darwinism
dictates that, our ultimate common ancestor, the very first single celled
organism, be self-sufficient. Being the first and only living thing, this cell
can’t rely on byproducts of any other organisms to assist in its survival. Alex Williams notes that,
“First life… must be able to sustain itself indefinitely – and only the
‘high-tech’ autotrophs can do that!” . Molecular geneticist Otto Yang
defined viruses as simply, “packaged RNA or DNA”. Viruses are inert unless they
come into contact with a living cell therefore they do not take self-generating
or self-sustaining actions , and are generally not even considered
to be alive. Under Darwinian presuppositions, viruses would be a highly degenerate
relative of the first single celled life form. This brings us to a crucial
- The Cambrian
Explosion:Darwinian evolution holds that one type of life diversified over time giving rise to many life
forms; however, the fossil record does not concur with Darwin in the
slightest on this point. As Dr John Morris and Frank Sherwin account, “The Cambrian
portion of the fossil record has preserved
multitudes of invertebrate types that all appeared at the same time,
each quite complex and quite different from the others. An honest look at
when and where fossil types are found suggests that life began with a multitude
of early life plans, not with a single plan that later branched out.” Dr Morris
also notes that, “Cambrian trilobites abound, with eyes at least as proficient
as those possessed by any animal living today.” . Indeed, the fossil record
preserves complex and unique organisms from the very beginning.
Fossils:There are numerous examples of species considered to
have gone extinct millions of years ago later found to still be alive today.
Randy Guliuzza gives a classic example saying, “National Geographic recalls how
‘the primitive-looking coelacanth…was thought to have gone extinct with the
dinosaurs 65 million years ago. But its discovery in 1938 by a South African
museum curator on a local fishing trawler fascinated the world.’” . Dr.
Carl Werner filled an entire book with examples of living fossils and found
that, “Examples of all the major groups of plants living today have been found
in dinosaur layers, including flowering plants and trees (angiosperms), plants
without fruits or flowers (conifers, cycads, and ginkgos); vascular
spore-forming plants (ferns, horsetails, and club mosses), and simple moss
(peat moss)” .
- Williams, Alex, “Human
genome decay and the origin of life”The In-depth Journal of
Creation 28:1 (2014): p91.
Shaun, “Large scale function for ‘endogenous retroviruses’” The In-depth
Journal of Creation 22:3 (2018) p 16.
- Wieland, Carl. Has AIDS evolved?
Creation 12:3 (1990) p29-32.
- Safrati, Jonathan. Refuting Evolution 2.
Creation Book Publishers, Powder Springs, Georgia, 2011 P38.
- Williams, Alex, “What life isn’t”The
In-depth Journal of Creation 29:1 (2015): 112.
John, Frank Sherwin. The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature’s History of Life.
Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, Texas, 2010. P44
Randy. Twenty Evolutionary Blunders: Danger and Difficulties of Darwinian
Thinking. Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, Texas, 2017 P94.
Carl. Lifing Fossils: Evolution: The Grand Experiment Vol. 2. New Leaf Press,
Green Forest, Arkansas, 2009. p230.
Ernst. What Evolution Is. New York, Basic Books, (2001). p 65.
Currie et al., eds., Feathered Dragons: Studies on the Transition from
Dinosaurs to Birds, Indian University Press, Bloomington, Indiana 2004.
- Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons (review
of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl
Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
- Soft Tissue: In
2005 Mary Schweitzer discovered soft tissue in a T-Rex bone traditionally dated
to be 65 million years old. Mary Schweitzer et al said, “Soft tissues are
preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex” . Observable science demonstrates
that soft tissue lasts perhaps thousands of years not millions. Kevin Anderson
PhD explained that, “Matthew Collins, directs a lab that specializes in
analysis of archaeological samples. His lab experimentally determined how
quickly proteins, such as collagen, will degrade even under ideal conditions.
From this data, the letter concludes that the warmer climate of the Hell Creek
Formation (where the T. rex was found) would accelerate collagen degradation,
resulting in only 1% remaining after less than 15,000 years” . According to
Mary Schweitzer, “The present state of knowledge holds that microbial attack,
enzymatic degradation, cellular necrosis and other processes contribute to
total degradation of recognizable materials in days to years” . Clearly the
biology here does not make sense in light of the claims of Darwinian evolution.
Pro’s Oversold Confidence in Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth:An old earth does not establish Darwinian evolution as scientifically feasible. However, since a young earth would render Darwinian evolution impossible let’s explore radiometric dating:
- Coal: Coal is
traditionally dated to be around 360 to 250 million years old. John R.
Baumgardner, PhD tested ten different coal samples collected from a variety of
coal fields and found significant
amounts of carbon 14 in all ten samples .
Snelling PhD found significant amounts of radiocarbon in wood dated to be 47.5
million years old .
- Diamonds: Natural diamonds are believed by evolutionists to be billions of years old. John
Baumgardner, PhD, part of the RATE research group, tested six diamond samples
from South Africa, Botswana, and Guinea and found significant amounts of carbon
14 present in all six diamonds . These are just a few examples.
- Dinosaurs: Hugh
Miller et al. tested 24 samples from 10 dinosaurs and found significant amounts
of carbon 14 in all 24 samples . All 24 samples dated less than
40,000 years old.
- Mt. Etna
Basalt, Sicily:two rock formations were tested here. The first formation is
known to have formed around 122 B.C. but yielded an age of 170,000-330,000
years. The second was formed in 1972 but was dated at 210,000-490,000 years.
Not only were the results astronomically erroneous, but the younger rock dated
the oldest. Therefore, K-Ar dating even failed to date these two deposits in
the correct relative order.
- Mt. St.
Helens, Washington:Rock formations formed in 1986 yielded a date
of 2.8 million years.
basalt, Hawaii:Rock formations from 1800-1801 were tested at 1.32-1.76 million
Ngauruhoe, New Zealand:Rocks formed in 1954 tested at up to 3.5
Iki basalt, Hawaii:Formations formed in 1959 tested at 1.7-15.3
Lifespan of Humans: Once again, Pro’s claim here has no relevance to the debate.
- Anderson, Kevin. Echoes of the Jurassic:
Discoveries of Dinosaur Soft-Tissue. CRS Books, (2017) p8. https://www.bx.psu.edu/miller_lab/dist/buckley.pdf
- Bergman, John. Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent
Global Flood and a Young Earth. Institute for Creation Research and the
Creation Research Society, 2005 p587-630
- Bergman, John. Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent
Global Flood and a Young Earth. Institute for Creation Research and the
Creation Research Society, 2005 p587-630
- Snelling Andrew, “Conflicting ‘ages’ of Territorial basalt
and contained fossilized wood, crinum, Central Queensland, Australia” The In-depth Journal of Creation 14:2 (2000): p99-122.
- Baumgardner, J., 14C evidence for a recent
global flood and a young earth; in ref. 6, ch. 8. 5th International Conference
on Creationism, 2003.
- Andrew Snelling, “Excess Argon: The ‘Achilles’
Heel’ of Potassium-Argon and Argon Argon Dating of Volcanic Rocks,” Impact, 1999.
- S.A. Austin, Do radioisotope clocks need
repair? Testing the assumptions of isochron dating using K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd,
and Pb-Pb isotopes, in Vardiman et al., Radioisotopes and the Age of
the Earth, P 325–392, 2005.
- R.V. Gentry, G.L Glish, and E.H. McBay,
“Differential Helium Retention in Zirons: Implications for Nuclear Waste
Containment,” Geophysical Research Letter 9, no. 10 (1982: p. 1129-1130.
- S.W. Reiners, K.A. Farley, and H.J. Hicks, “He
Diffusion and (U-Th)/He Thermochronometry of Zircon: Initial Results from Fish
Canyon Tuff and Gold Butte, Nevada,” Tectonophysics 349, no. 1-4 (2002): p. 297-308;
- D. Russell Humphreys et al., “Helium Diffusion
Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay,” in proceeding of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism,
R.L. Ivey Jr., ed. (Pittsburg, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), p.
- D. Russell Humphreys, “Young Helium Diffusion
Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth Creationist Research Initiative,
L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaffin, eds. (El Cajon, CA: Institute for
Creation Research, and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society, 2005), p.
- Snelling, Andrew et al. “What Are Some of the
Best Evidences in Science for a Young Creation” The New Answers Book 4 (2015):
- William D. Stanfield, PhD., The Science of
Evolution, Macmillan, New York, P 82-84, 1977.
based on 6,000 years (the number of
years it takes for 1 mutation to fix in a population - see source 11 and 15) multiplied by 153.5 million (the number
of base pair differences between apes and humans divided by two (since both
theoretical species can evolve simultaneously) - see source 2 and 11 in my
To be completely honest, I'm barely familiar with Kent Hovind and don't know what he has to say on the issue. I do find it interesting that his name is so frequently brought up by the openly opinionated anti-creationists.
You’ve been watching too much Kent Hovind
Also, if by high-school level you are referring to text books which still use the Hackles Embryos fraud; then clearly you need a better source.
Did you even read the debate? See source 17 and 18 in my opening argument.
I am very obviously not trying to debate you. I am asking for you to back up a claim you have made because I enjoy educating myself in scientific topics. If you would rather just make unsubstantiated claims and laud them as unquestionable truth that really doesn't bother me at all, just figured I would ask.
You have dismissed my evidence without providing evidence of your own. My points stand and I owe you no additional sources. I have found debating in the comments section to be quite unproductive, and frequently uncivilized. If I can find the time later, we should debate properly.
The only part of your argument not easily dismissed by a basic highschool level of understanding of the topic is the claims you made under the heading "something from nothing" near the end of your first round. Assuming there is an actual scientific paper that exists to back up this claim I would be very interested in reading it. As you did not provide a link to one in your argument please provide one to me either in the comments section here or via PM.
Sorry. I fell asleep before I posted my arguments. Let's just continue.
What does 'information" mean?
Id argue that due to the fact we have no evidence of repeated testing of the original (whatever) that evolution is still a hypothesis at best and untestable based on the original dna at worst.
why did you restart