YEC is unlikely

Ok then. I will show you evidence for the following: 1. Evolution http://encarta.msn.com... Read "Natural Selection in Populations", "Origins of New Species", and "How scientists study evolution." http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Take a look at my evolution evidence. Fruit flies, bacteria, viruses, and the peppered tree moth have all been seen to evolve within our lifetimes. We've witnessed it. The acceptance of the evolutionary theory is not a mere assuption, it is well evidenced. 2. Carbon Dating http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. Big Bang http://encarta.msn.com... All of these theories are well evidenced. ARGUMENTS 1. Grand Canyon My source shows that the grand canyon was developed from 2 sides. a) How could a flood make a DEEP CANYON in a matter of WEEKS. b) Why didn't the flood put canyons everywhere? As far as noah's flood goes, there is no evidence of that event. Only negative evidence, attacking other theories and pressuming validity as the only standing hypothesis. Even if it happened, I don't understand why it would create the grand canyon. Also, if the Bible is a valid source of evidence, why isn't the Greek, Egyptian, or Native American accounts of earths creation? 2. Impact Craters This contention is legit. If those craters were volcanic, they would be composed of volcanic rock. Although a minority of scientists have alternative theories for the formation of tektite, they don't argue against them being formed by impact craters. It is silly to argue that if you haven't seen a meteor hit the earth it didn't happen. While I provide evidence you play the 'you can't be 100% sure' card. Well, when it comes to likelihood the most developed/evidenced theory is the victor. 3. Vast amount of species a) Even if you deny evolution, you can't deny the fossil record and the fact that extinct species existed. Why did they suddenly disappear but we survived? I ask you question 'a' once again. b) It is not that simple. Empty space alone cannot support life; there needs to be resources. My extinction statistic has nothing to do with evolution. If you multiplied the current species that exists by 99, resources would deplete rapidly. c) What are the odds of man defeating it's current competitors times 99 from scratch? You say I assume evolution when you assume YEC. d) This doesn't assume evolution. I ask again, why would dangerously equipt species die out but we survive. e) If we had that technology at the VERY beginning, we should've also had cellphones and computers. Knowledge is not a force; it is developed. f) Rediculous. g) If we were around when 99 times the diseases were around, we would be dead. 4. Supervolcanoes. How is that unscientific? Counterevidence please. BOTTOM LINE http://en.wikipedia.org... The YEC community has been known to blame it's lack of recognition in the scientific community because of discrimination. However, if you go under 'Attitude towards science,' you will see how many scientific fields YEC denies. Also, under 'Criticism' you will see that in a poll, only 5% of professional scientists take a sincere YEC view. However, 40% of them think god guided humans through millions of years of evolvution, while 55% think god took no part. All of the science that disagrees with YEC does not contradict itself. YEC treats it as if it is all assumed and/or, coincidential and counters, but provides no evidence on it's behalf. This is a negative argument and therefore can't be considered valid. All of my opponent's sources were biased from creation science, which is mostly psuedoscience. http://en.wikipedia.org... When it's all said and done, the odds don't stack in YEC's favor. Please vote PRO. Thank you. :)