Biblical creationism has been debunked by modern science

First of all, let me say this has been a very stimulating debate and you are a worthy opponent. Thank you. The disagreement between Evolution and Creationism is the role of God in the development of what we see today. I think you are misunderstanding my line of attack. I don't have to prove that creation happened according to the Bible. Your thesis claims that Biblical creation has been debunked by modern science. All I have to do is to poke enough holes in your thesis so that it collapses in upon itself in the mind of a reasonable person. The burden of proof is upon you, which you already know. If you had phrased your thesis to say something like Literal Biblical Creation has been debunked, then I would have to agree with you. I understand that is what you implied, but creationism encompasses so much more than a literal reading of the Bible. Conversely, the term evolution was coined by Charles Darwin to explain the progression of life. We have extended this conversation beyond this term to define evolution to mean the creation and development of the universe. Dr. Harold Horowitz calculated the probability of life forming on earth to be 1/10^340,000,000. Dr. Horowitz is hardly a creationist nut, he is an evolutionist. He has testified against creationism being taught in schools. However, this probability is outrageously high. Current estimates of the number of stars in the universe is approximately 10^23. Now, a valid argument against this is that we are calculating this number "after the fact". In other words, we must be the lucky schmucks to win the ultimate lottery. However, this makes for a rather lonely universe since we would be virtually the only inhabitants of the universe. Ironically, that's an argument that fundamentalist Christians have been lambasted for. Personally, I don't believe we're the only ones in this wonderful universe and simple evolution just doesn't seem to offer more than one chance to create other life forms. When we add current research of the strong possibility of life, in the form of bacteria, on Mars, then the probability argument gets much weaker. Considering the knowledge of the time of the authorship of the Bible, the order of creation is surprisingly accurate. Light is created, the firmament is created, dry land is created then fish, then bird and animals and finally man, which is on par with the evolutionary theory of life. The term "waters" is loosely used to represent the universe as a whole. Consider in Gen 1:2. The Spirit of God move across the face of the waters. Now, logically, the actual seas aren't created until Gen 1:9, and even then they are named seas, not waters. We see in the later story of the great flood of Noah, that the "heavens opened". How else would you reconcile a phenomenon such as rain in that time without claiming the sky was composed of water? However, the question begs itself, why didn't God just speak the world into existence in a single word? Why drag the process out? Adam & Eve - Here we fall back to the previous argument regarding the creation of life outside of the literal text of the Bible. While the Bible says explicitly that Adam and Eve are created, it doesn't mention further creations. This leaves us with another quandary. If we follow literal interpretation, doesn't that preclude the possibility of life on other planets? After all, it doesn't explicitly say it and simple probability would make it highly unlikely. If we reject those conclusions, we have to accept that they were created by something that ignored probability. And if we accept that, then we have to, at least, openly consider the fact that further humans may have been created to expand the "breeding stock" so to speak. Gaps - I firmly believe everything happens for a reason. For every action, there's a reaction. Even in the field of Quantum Mechanics, I believe in the action/reaction. Like you, I believe that there are things at play in the universe that we simply don't know about yet. However, until we know what that force is, we can't discount any impetus, including that of God. 1. That's a logically fallacious argument. While it doesn't present evidence for God, it neither presents evidence against God's involvement. As I mentioned before, and you have acknowledged, there are gaps in our knowledge of the universe around us. An open mind is willing to grant that anything, including a highly improbable God, as being the reason something happens. 2. Yes, evolution does have to describe the Big Bang. It's a key part in why we exist. 3. No, the Bible doesn't contradict science on how God made the earth. It simply said he created each day. Consider this logical exercise. I bake (or create) a cake. All I have to tell you is that I baked it and you mentally know that there are steps performed in the baking of the cake. I don't have to express those steps, I simply say that I baked it. 4. As has been mentioned exhaustively already, evolution is a theory. Yes it's backed by some damn solid research, but there are still holes in it that can't be explained away quite yet, you've acknowledged that point. Until those gaps have been filled, it will remain a theory and not a scientific fact. As I've already mentioned before, I'm a believer in Intelligent Design. I'm also a Deist that sees the wonderful world around us as a beautiful clock-work world with little influence from a higher power. I see this place as the ultimate Rubik's Cube to keep us entertained while we live in this universe. I believe God created this universe and sat back with a smile saying to himself, "Ha, let's see them figure this one out!" Science and religion are not contradictory of each other. One doesn't touch the other. As I've also mentioned before, the onus of proof is upon you. You have to prove that God had no hand in the creation of the universe, and by extension, that God doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for atheist, this is a losing argument. Not because those of faith can prove God exists, but because atheists can't prove he doesn't exist. I leave with one last thought. Blaise Pascal, considered the father of modern hydraulics, was also a mathematician and a theologian. One of his best known contributions is what is known as The Great Wager: Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists. Again, thank you for a great debate, the vote is now in the hands of others.