Resolution: Scientists should debate young earth creationists in live formats

I will address my opponents points: "This debate about debates can get messy. The YE guys and the scientists have a debate, and we are having a debate about their debate." Agreed. "It is the arguments put forth by the YE people that have no value." As I previously stated, even if the YEC arguments have no value, the falsifiable arguments they do present are pseudoscience backed by religious, cultural, and political dogma; therefore, no value or otherwise, the arguments must be shown to be incorrect and deceitful. Doing so in a live format is necessary as the YECs are most influential in such formats. "Are there any (Young Earth) Scientists?" Not in a legitimate capacity, no, but they do practice pseudoscience, hence my issue with them. The YEC movement claims to have scientists, but their work would not meet the basic requirements needed for scientific study. Although some YECs have degrees from secular universities, the work they conduct cannot be called science due to their reliance on a supernatural entity to support their overall conclusions. Another weapon used by YECs is to create fields of study in faith based schools and provide unaccredited degrees in those fields. (see Patriot university, for example) This is one of the more important claims that needs to be exposed in a debate. I have an idea as to how to do this, but my opponent is still contesting the debate in the first place so I do not see a need in addressing how a scientist should respond to false degrees as I need to show the legitimacy of the debate in the first place. "The captivity of the "captive audience" is the problem." This contention is vague. I do not know if my opponent has issue with my claim that the audience is captive or agrees that YECs do have a captive audience when speaking at churches and that poses a problem. If the contention is the later, then I agree. If the former, then I will add that church, at least in my experience, is a community gathering. Some people attend for social networking, some for faith based study of the Bible (Sunday school), some for charity organization, and others because they feel it is required by religious doctrine. Church attendance is hardly mandatory in mainstream organizations, I agree. But attending church functions to be closer to other Christians and God gives the YEC a perfect forum to spew false scientific claims and to vilify those who disagree. Such a charged atmosphere creates a captive audience in some sense and one that will be more prone to believe the YEC pseudo scientific claims. Scientists must reach these people and confront YEC at the same time. "The Universal Truth In Religious Claims Act as well as the Universal Maniac On The Loose Control Act are applicable here. The Universal Truth In Religious Claims Act provides a religious forum for the debating of religious issues. Both of these imaginary acts are implemented worldwide by imaginary means. The Rude Comedian Act requires all points of view to be expressed including the Flying Spaghetti Monster believers. http://www.venganza.org...... Nobody wants that, we will tell them. But IF we have to, and I stress if…" I enjoyed my opponents satirical Acts (and request permission to use them in the future, with credit given of course) and his reference to the FSM, but each misses the point. The debate is not about their religion so much as their scientific claims. Scientists should not go after their religion, just their science. The YECs do make falsifiable claims outside of religion and the scientist must show those claims to be false. For example: Claim: Geological evidence shows the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. This is a falsifiable claim outside of a religious context that can be, and has been, refuted. The claim is based on an interpretation of a biblical chronology, not geological evidence. The scientist can regulate the belief in a young earth to a pure faith position which is the place she stops. Claim: Geological evidence shows a world wide flood occurred 4,000- 5,000 years ago. This is a falsifiable claim outside of a religious context that can be, and has been, refuted. The claim is based on a belief that Noah's flood, as depicted in a selective reading of Genesis, was world wide and accurately portrayed in scripture, not geological evidence. Again, the scientist can regulate the belief in a world wide flood 4,000 years ago to a pure faith position outside of science. The scientist needs to focus on falsifying such claims and leave the debate at the point. If the scientist wishes to go further into the spiraling hole of the divinity and absolute truth of scripture then the FSM becomes fair game and the debate will go nowhere, as it will be a battle of pure faith based beliefs, but scientists should push the YECs to that point. Once there, the deceitful, rhetorical arguments from the YECs will be exposed; therefore, the debate to this point is necessary. I see no need to mention the FSM when dealing with falsifiable claims that science can answer. YECs can have only one honest position and that is simply that all geological, cosmological, biological, and physical evidence refutes their claims but they have faith that the earth is young, once here - the scientist's work is done. My opponent makes a solid claim stating the YEC argument, in debate terms, has no value, but policy and influence are not subject to the realm of the formal debate. Dismissing a YEC due to ivory tower rules will only embolden them and increase the influence of their false, albeit simple, claims that the average person can find plausible. Science is too important to ignore this influence due to a strict debate policy used in academia. YECs may not be allowed in debate halls, but they are making their own and are doing well (outside of debate terms, but in the area of influence) in the forums that scientists shun. This practice, by scientists, is a mistake.