Creationism is a viable theory

Thanks for response Pro, onto the final round of rebuttals. It seems that Pro has decided to focus on facts and science this round and I am grateful. No response to any of the points I brought up about the bible being a preposterous book to use for science, so those remain unrefuted. I’m going to start with DNA evidence. I will make clear what I meant when I said “You bring up the DNA argument to stretch it across the young earth creationism model, and to prove to me that evolutionary theory isn’t plausible.” You claimed it wasn’t god of the gaps. It is god of the gaps. We don’t have a bullet-proof theory for abiogenesis, and you claim that the answer to why the codes seem man-made is because something must have created them – intelligent design. Nobody knows that. You can make an assumption that because they are mathematical or because they use universal information they are created, but you can’t prove that and I can’t prove you wrong. You depend on this point as a crutch for your entire argument: “…my argument is entirely based on what we observe and understand about the function of genomes.” It annoys me that I bring up vestigial legs on whales or the human appendix (now for the third round in a row) you still do not refute the actual direct proof that I can prove exists…that strikes me as god of the gaps. Pro says “…the only field in which we can have true proof is pure mathematics. Beyond this, the scientific method is the next best evidence for a given claim.” Unless you are using the scientific method in biology apparently. Pro uses some serious scientific method in my answer to the ‘problem of having common building blocks for life’ by simply saying “Whether most biologists agree on an issue or not is irrelevant…” When a majority of well-educated scholars working in modern science say that something probably happened there is a very good chance that it did indeed happen. What seems more logical: That we were made by a god who used the all the same codes when he ‘coded us’ like computers in a divine heavenly factory. …or: That we evolved on the earth from a common ancestor. Sure both theories ‘work’ as answers, but one is based in reality and the other is based on a book of recyclable myths. Pro continues to use unbiased, honest, fair sources like creation.com or ICR, or, The Institute for Creation Research, a site that says in seriousness: “Creation involved unique processes that could have had unusual effects on our perceptions of space and time. Given the fallibility of human understanding, the reasonable approach in any area of science, especially the historical sciences of ultimate origins, should be to begin with the word of the Eyewitness.” Trusting this site for modern science is a bit silly. Jeffrey P. Tomkins is not credible. You won’t find him published in any scientific journals (I looked) and his findings on ape genetics have been refuted (http://scienceblogs.com...). For the actually accredited University of California, Molecular Biologists Wesley Brown and Allan Wilson (winner of the prestigious MacArthur award [all PhD]) found back in 1975 that we are 98% similar to chimps (http://www.reed.edu...). His work, you will find published and ratified by numerous biologists, including a man I’m sure you don’t like, Richard Dawkins, who, in this video shows off how similar we really are (https://www.youtube.com...). We’ve sequenced both the human genome and the chimp genome and compared the two and come to about 96%-98% the exact same. Pro then spends a great deal of time refuting Stanley Miller’s work. He immediately makes the assumption that I haven’t investigated Miller’s claims - which I find a bit presumptuous on his part. I won’t dispute that the experiment was perfect because it wasn’t. It was conducted in the 50’s and of course we don’t know for certain what kind of environment might have existed, but thanks to abundant samples (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) of polar ice we can get a pretty good idea. Miller did not know about certain factors that we know about now; still a worthy experiment (I see few such experiments on your side of the argument), but flawed, perhaps. Thank goodness that recent studies have continued to ratify and build on his early study like one conducted in 2005 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) at Nara Women's University in Japan proved that with the updated atmosphere more acids emerged. Geologists dispute Miller on the basis of a toxic atmosphere, and so the proof against them would be to find evidence of a reducing atmosphere. Prof. Bruce Fegley, Ph.D at Wash. University said “Geologists dispute the Miller-Urey scenario, but what they seem to be forgetting is that when you assemble the Earth out of chondrites, you’ve got slightly different gases being evolved from heating up all these materials that have assembled to form the Earth. Our calculations provide a natural explanation for getting this reducing atmosphere…” (http://news.wustl.edu...) From the article: “Schaefer and Fegley looked at different types of chondrites that earth and planetary scientists believe were instrumental in making the Earth. They used sophisticated computer codes for chemical equilibrium to figure out what happens when the minerals in the meteorites are heated up and react with each other. For example, when calcium carbonate is heated up and decomposed, it forms carbon dioxide gas.” (Trimmed for space) Joe Meert (from R3): “Note that there are no ‘wild fluctuations’ observed in the archeomagnetic database using 500 year averages and that today’s field is actually stronger than it has been in the past. Thus, while the dipole field shows a decreasing intensity, it is still greater than 6000 years ago and therefore (using the young earth timeline) stronger than at creation.” They are ‘quibbling’ over the actual scientific record. You again continue to source about the same three creationist websites to back up your claims. If something doesn’t match the established scientific record then either its rubbish or it’ll break open science. What seems more probable with a theory that depends on a flood that never happened (see below)? “Con indeed has not disproven in any way young-Earth creationism.” I’ve spent the debate doing exactly that. Speed round: Continental drift occurs at 2 cm per year so mathematically we must have been moving for at least 200 Million years. (http://rationalwiki.org...) Counting the rings on The Great Basin bristlecone pine measures 5064 years, directly contradicting the official flood story of the creationists. King Clone, a creosote bush in the Mojave Desert is 11,700 years old by radiocarbon dating; which was also verified by counting the rings; both yielding the same result, documented by Prof. Frank Vasek of the University of California. (http://www.lucernevalley.net...) Pando, a ‘single-tree-forest’ of Quaking Aspen Trees in Utah that has a root system that is 80,000 years old. (http://www.bioone.org...) Permafrost forms in a very slow process, and in the Prudhoe Bay oil fields in Alaska the permafrost extends over 600 meters into the ground, a process that would have taken 225,000 years. (http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net...) Mathematically, we’ve calculated the chances of being struck by an asteroid to 2.5 x 10−9 yr−1, when multiplied by the number of earth crossing asteroids we get an asteroid every 313,000 years, and yet we’ve been struck multiple times by large asteroids. (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...) From Harvard.