Evolution is more likely than Young Earth Creationism

Thank you for your opening arguments. Now I will provide mine. #1. Young Earth Theory The main concept is that the world was created by a higher deity at around 10-6,000 years ago. In other words, it is the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. [1] Sadly, many people misinterpret the Young Earth theory by saying it is all based upon the Bible and that this "religious" Book tops all scientific evidence. This is not too far from correct. But I, and most Creationists, believe that science is based upon the Bible, and we can explore them both in order to reach higher levels of knowledge in the world. This is quite an amazing phenomenon, that an old book works along side with modern day science and the science does not refute it. I will rebut what you said about YET in the next round. For now, though, I will explain how Young Earth has well-substantial evidence and is more probable than the Old Earth idea. First, a definition. Science is defined as "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." Too often, "science" and "naturalism" are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Neither Creationism nor naturalism is falsifiable, but we are talking about facts that represent both theories. And although facts are facts, there is no such thing as a fact that absolutely requires a single interpretation. The divide between creationism and secular naturalism rests entirely on different interpretations. Regarding the evolution vs. creation debate specifically, Charles Darwin himself made this point. In the introduction to The Origin of Species, he stated, "I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived." [1] A). The earth's age is taken from knowing the genealogies of people in the Bible and then finding scientific evidence that supports it. There is much proof of people who lived to be around 700 years old in Biblical times, so I will not get in to that unless you address it. Old Earth Theory is based on assumptions with a few pieces of scientific evidence, but no historical evidence at all. I also have a few questions for it (such as, when did the first humans start to evolve and what were they, why did it take so long for humans to evolve into what they are now, how come we lost our huge amounts of body hair like apes--our common ancestors--have, etc.), but those are for later. The point is, we have actual prophecies fulfilled, song books and diaries/journals from around 5,000 years ago, and all of these are either prophesies and commandments told from a Creator to people which were later fulfilled, praise songs to a Creator, or journals which show real encounters with miracles and/or a supernatural being (Creator). The funny thing is, all these historic "journals" are backed up with scientific and observable evidence that prove the things that happened in the journals. Of-course all these journals, commandments and prophesies, and song books are part of the Creation theory's main source: the Bible. B). There is nothing wrong with believing the Bible, when there is scientific evidence to prove it, but if you only take the easy-to-believe stories in the Bible and make them your religion and beliefs the Bible is of less validity and credibility. C). Scientific proof for OEC and YEC... There is substantial evidence for the Flood. -There is evidence for the Red Sea being split. -There are real places that the Bible mentions (Elim, found in Exodus, The Pool at Bethesda, found in John 5, etc.) -Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter"no errors. [2] #2. Logic says... When we think of the Big Bang, most of us have a picture of http://www.motifake.com... And it seems easy to think, 'Sooner or later something would exist, expand, and become something like earth.' But when has anything like this been proven to happen? Never. Anything like it, and nothing happens. When any one scientist has tried to do an experiment to prove the Big Bang could happen, their 'nothing' stays nothing, and doesn't become anything different and DEFINITELY not better. Anyways, admit it: logic will never tell you that something can form out of nothing, even if anything was proven in this subject. Physical science will never be capable enough to explain the non-physical. It is the same with evolution. To start with, Charles Darwin did not use logic when he wrote his book 'On the Origin of Species.' Many holes and unanswered questions fill that book anyway, which I might get in to later. The man who started the thought of Evolution didn't have a lot of proof for it at all--just assumptions and a fossil which sparked the idea--but now it is a highly respected theory. Why? My personal opinion used to be that a lot of people hate the thought of us being created or that there's a Higher Being, and the Big Bang and/or Evolution is a good way to get rid of that thought, or a good excuse to tell people when they say a Creator is the only option. But my opponent here is a Christian. He believes in the Christian Creator God, but to him the better theory between YEC and Evolution, is Evolution. So, my question for my Christian opponent is, why couldn't have God had the strength and the power enough to make the earth in 6 days? What would you think of a person who saw a computer chip with millions of transistors that were self-connected into a computer and it all worked--who said, "You know that spontaneous events formed that computer chip by electrical and mineral activity -- multiprocessing program included? It is scientific fact that the chip obviously had no designer, no plan or maker! Oh, that is explained by billions of years of processes by pressures of nature..." It's the same with the evolutionists who essentially say that's how the optic center in the brain came to exist, and that is a more interdependent processor than the most advanced computer chip ever made. So they say that the optic nerves, the eye and the retina all happened by a series of natural events that we can call ad hoc mistake--"formed in one particular moment without ability to consider any application." Is this logical? [3] #3. Young Earth Creationists take the Bible literally, and proof better backs up this I believe that the Bible specifically says "all creatures were made of their own kind." As a Christian who takes the Bible literally (because it is God's Word, or Message, to us), I also believe that on the 7th day (after God created the earth and everything in it) He said He was finished and He saw that it was good. This is big proof to me, besides the fact that he made all creatures OF THEIR OWN KIND so that they wouldn't evolve, since a lot of times Christian evolutionists dismiss that part of the Bible quickly, and I like to think that "if humans had evolved yet God created them, He would still be working on the creatures in nature and it would not be 'finished.' [4] Things that contradict OEC: -The Bible says creatures were created of their own kind, not to be evolved from one kind to another. -"Evening came, and then morning" seems to indicate a literal day (Gn. 1:5, etc.) -Sabbath rest (Ex 20:11) seems to imply six literal days of work, during the Creation week. -The sun wasn't created until Day 4 in the Bible, but there was life on Day 3 which cannot exist for long times without sunlight -If death is an enemy (1Co 15:54) was God's original plan of paradise free from killing, or was it filled with violence, decay, and death? Man was not permitted to eat animals until after the Flood (Gn 9:2-3). -God saw that "it was good and finished" at the end of His creating, not to keep evolving in to different. Conclusion: When you look at the differences between OEC and YEC the only ones are the EVOLVING part and the NOT LITERAL Bible which is what we are debating right now! So far, though, I have proven that OEC contradicts the Bible and this is not good for a Christian evolutionist. Thank-you, and avodah!! SOURCES [1] http://www.gotquestions.org.... [2] http://www.reasons.org... [3] http://www.wikihow.com... [4] http://biblehub.com.... [5] http://www.reasons.org...