The fundamentalist doctrine of "Young Earth Creationism" is incompatible with cosmic realities.

Thank you for accepting. This is a Scientific DebateThe readers will see that this is a scientific debate. The reason YEC is applicable is because it is making a scientific claim as to the age of the earth. You will note that my opponent has used half of his time explaining how YEC is compatible with the Biblical account of creation. I need to make this clear, and it is something that is admitted by Vatican a Vatican astronomer (http://www.youtube.com...), that the Bible is not science. The scientific revolution was an incredible amount of time after these texts were written. These texts, and even those that are even older and yet just as unreliable that my opponent is not using, cannot possibly be used to determine scientific fact, and should not even be considered when asking scientific questions. I'm sure my opponent would be able to "reconcile" scientific facts found in Hindu or ancient Egyptian creation myths as well. I do not feel the need to comment further on your religious assumptions and your unnecessary reconciliation between texts written thousands of years before modern science and, of course, modern science. My opponent shows perfectly my point when he says, "It's really not that hard to answer those questions no matter what understanding you come from." And I wholeheartedly agree, because these are vague, incoherent, non-scientific texts which were not written with any form of scientific accuracy, and nor were they meant to be.How My Opponent Violated the Debate's Teleological Assumption Requirement You will note that in the first round I noted that this is a scientific debate, which cannot include assumptions of teleological priority. My opponent has claimed that the earth, for some reason or another, was granted visibility to distant stars when it was "created." His further disputes of the age of the earth is dependent on such an unfalsifiable (http://en.wikipedia.org...), and therefore yet again non-scientific, assumption. This fails to take into consideration the expanding universe, and thus stars and galaxies that are becoming visible to us all the time. My opponent has not refuted my point, but used theological assumptions and teleological priorities to circumnavigate the argument and lead us to his unfalsifiable claim. Much like Kirk Cameron in his viral videos saying that the way to share faith is to, literally, "circumnavigate the intellect." I hope the readers have not been circumnavigated so easily. "YEC is an indicated must by science."The following is a NASA link explaining the incredibly intricate (and over-simplified by my opponent) process by which we have come to know, with a huge majority of scientists agreeing, the earth's true age (~4.5 billion years). (http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...)My opponent says that "By the Theistic view of Gods act of creating the universe..." It is clear that he not only has failed to realize the category of this debate (Science), but that he is debating a staunch atheist. It is clear that my opponent is only convincing to those who already hold intellectual and scientific blocks which may prove dangerous to a fundamentalist world view. You will note that he asks questions such as "how tall are the first trees he created on the day he created them? How old did Adam appear physically? Was every animal created an infant?" Let me repeat myself once again: these are theological questions based on unsubstantiated myths that were never meant to be taken as scientifically accurate, and have no place in a scientific debate with an immense amount of practical evidence riding on it. You have not shown a valid scientific refutation of my arguments.SourcesMy opponet's sources are theist, anti-evolution sites and a UK media site photo with no further sourcing or context (objectivity is a clear problem). I note again that this is a scientific question, and in order to have any level of credibility in this debate you must show scientific credibility. I think those that recognize quality of sources over quantity will recognize my NASA link above as towering over those used by my opponent. I may also note that NASA is a governmental organization, one such organization of this "Christian" nation. If you're not satisfied with my sourcing on this quite agreed-upon process and its conclusions/implications, I provide the following: How Radiocarbon Dating Works: (http://en.wikipedia.org...)UC Santa Barbara: (http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu...)Carleton College: (http://www.acad.carleton.edu...)My opponent feels as though he can use this widely known process to actively deny the conclusions that the people who created it have drawn. He has not shown any reason to believe he possesses such an impressive ability. If he does, I concede, and propose NASA be informed right away.