Evolution is more likely than Young Earth Creationism

Thanks to my opponent for the argument. Sorry about the technical difficulties, I hope this round turns out better. I remind my opponent that she cannot post new arguments next round. 1. My opponent states that we cannot take Biblical claims as true unless backed by scientific evidence: "If the scientific claims are TRUE and have been PROVEN, then THAT is the evidence that the Bible's claims are true." She also states that not all of the Bible is God's actual word, but rather much of it is the words of people. I ask her to present solid positive scientific proof (as she has stated the Bible alone cannot be proven true without scientific evidence) that creation transpired in the exact way described in Genesis (positive evidence is evidence that attempts to prove YEC and not simply disprove the Old Earth Evolutionary Theory). This first argument actually helped my side a lot. 2. This is a complicated process to explain, but I'll try to make it as basic as possible. Many rocks contain radioactive isotopes of various elements. "Some of the atoms [of these isotopes] eventually change from one element to another by a process called radioactive decay. If there are a lot of atoms of the original element, called the parent element, the atoms decay to another element, called the daughter element, at a predictable rate. The passage of time can be charted by the reduction in the number of parent atoms, and the increase in the number of daughter atoms" [1]. Scientists find a specific isotope whose half-life (the time it takes for half of a given isotope to decay) is known in a rock that they wish to date. They use a logarithmic equation (this varies depending on the type of dating done) to determine how long the isotope has been decaying based on the ratio of parent to daughter atoms in the isotope. Keep in mind that this dating process has been being conducted for over 50 years, at many labs around the world, using many different elements, and the results have been the same on the age of the earth and other old materials [1]. 3. A dating system that can only be accurate up to 80,000 years and is recognized by evolutionist scientists to be so helps YEC's case how? It is not the dating system that was used to determine the age of fossils older than 80,000 years. Furthermore, any age of a rock found to be over 10,000 years old disproves YEC. 4. Duly noted. However, my opponent never actually explained how genealogies prove YEC more likely than Evolution, or cited any evidence for the genealogies even being correct. She also never stated how genealogies, if correct, in any way exclude evolutions existence. She just stated that "The earth's age is taken from knowing the genealogies of people in the Bible and then finding scientific evidence that supports it." Genealogies, even if scientifically proven correct (which I have yet to see) do not exclude evolution in any way, as Adam and Eve could simply be the first humans to have evolved. 5."The whole reason people believe Old Earth Creationism/evolution more than Young Earth Creationism is because your theory sounds more reasonable and even sounds more probable." Probably because it is more probable and reasonable. "Also, I believe evolution should not be the only theory taught in public schools because this is another factor that the majority believes in evolution: they were born into the world with all the voices around them saying it's fact, and that's NOT a certainty, even Richard Dawkins can say that." The public school debate is irrelevant. My opponent claims that popularity should not be the reason evolution is seen as the more likely theory, I wholeheartedly agree. However, as I stated before, the facts dictate that evolution is far more likely, as no positive scientific evidence exists for creationism, creationists simply believe what the Bible says is literal and search for ways to make other theories seem incredible. Although evolution is not an absolute certainty, neither is any theory. In fact, gravity is "just a theory" as well. In addition, Richard Dawkins holds that "evolution is a fact" [2]. Conclusion I believe I have without a doubt demonstrated the likelihood of evolution. It is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and unrefuted by religion. I will leave you with a cool quote from an article I found (Read the whole article, you'll learn something). "Evolution, as defined by Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes in their textbook, "Biology," is "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." It is beyond me how accepting this fact of science could possibly undermine one's faith in Jesus, from whom originated all things which science is capable of exploring. Christ is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Therefore, if evolution is true, as everything we know about biology, and a number of overlapping fields of inquiry indicate, then it is incapable of conflicting with the God-breathed truth of sacred scripture. If there appears to be a disagreement between the two, then the interpretation of the passage in question must be incorrect. For the Bible-believing Christian, there is no other option" [3]. I hope, along with proving to the voters that evolution is the more likely theory, have convinced my opponent to see it in a different light. Thank you. Sources [1]http://www.asa3.org... [2]https://www.goodreads.com... [3]http://www.godofevolution.com...