Biblical Creationism has enough evidence to be considered a Scientific Theory

| Discussion on Topicality | The definition is arbitrary I know you disagree, that’s the point. For if I bring up 10 evidence, then you’ll disagree with it and say you don’t think it is enough… Over and over, as it would be like arguing with a rock on the matter. But what if we swapped positions and argued on if evolution has enough evidence to be theory… I’d just sit back and say, “assumption, assumption, I say! Not convinced.” For by that definition evolution wouldn’t be a theory because I don’t consider it to be. In fact you could do it with any theory, geology, physics, etc. All current theories are supported by numerous evidence? That’s not true, some of string theory (like m-theory) doesn’t have any good evidence, and even if it did it certainly doesn’t have numerous as you say. They’re usually just pulling your leg on evidence for the multiverse. There’s not exactly a whole lot of evidence for black holes either. Also your making an argument from current day scientific theory, there are some historical ones that didn’t have much evidence… like Welteislehre, though more modern ones might be Einstein’s static universe. | Evidence | 1) Rebutt: That does not specifically prove Creationism Okay, misconception here. I’m not trying to “specifically prove Creationism”, I can’t. What I’m trying to prove is that it has enough evidence to be considered a Scientific Theory, its different then proving creationism for scientific theories aren’t required to be proven but “inferred” by evidence. For example, in physics it states that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference, however I myself can’t prove that, nor any physicist alive. But, there is evidence that heavily “infers” this, but we can’t possibly know for certain UNIVERSALLY, for how can we possibly know that light behaves identically in a googleplexian amount of other solar systems when we’ve never tested it outside of our own? It is an assumption, which is the back bone to science. The problem with saying evolution can explain this phenomena better is that the theory isn’t designed to explain the origins of life on earth. Evolution is basically a theory that describes the relationships of other ancestral species, the problem is where did the ancestors get there design? For all ancestors are complex enough to see this design observation. The thing is you’ll have to claim spontaneous generation to say evolution can answer the origins(which evolution theory does NOT claim!) Biblical creationism solves this phenomena, and explains it better then evolution as it shows where we get the design. It was simply created by an everlasting intelligent being. Also it’s perfectly alright that science theories be contradictive. For example classical mechanics contradicts Einstein’s special relativity in the area of absolute time and space[1]. It’s kind of like whatever explanation floats your boat. Likewise even if evolution does contradict with creationism, that doesn’t mean they can’t both be scientific theories. This argument DOES heavily infer a creator. While I do agree with con here that it doesn’t prove creationism, it doesn’t have to be for a scientific theory. 2) Rebutt: Vestigial Structures In Darwin’s days I would understand why the appendix would be viewed as a useless organ for they had little evidence for its function, however our knowledge have grown considerably since then. The appendix function aids the immune system as it harbors good bacteria for the gut[2]. As to coccyx, it does provide attachment for tendons, ligaments, and muscles[3]. And personally I’m happy that God didn’t deprive me of nipples, for they possess a great deal of nerve tissue in them to stimulate my sex drive… I’m not sure about you, but my breasts feels great on top of hers. As you see, vestigial structures are highly debatable. We may not know everything about the body, but like the appendix, our knowledge is growing. B] Evidence from Young Earth Creationism YEC ARG I: Short-Lived comics Yes I know it assumes, it’s particularly the assumption from Uniformitarianism and it’s perfectly a valid science assumption. I’m going to be straight with you here, as this is science not philosophy, so factual logic is a little foreign here (not calling scientist dumb, but they often work with assumptions, it’s just simply the nature of their work, nothing wrong with that, its impossible not to). It’s not uncommon seeing reasoning through assumptions for ALL old earth beliefs are based off of the assumption that processes that we see today have operated the way they have. It’s ok, though uniformitarianism probably isn’t true (could be), but it doesn’t matter for this is science, not something that has to be logically true. If you want to do something logically true, I suggest mathematics. Many origins? The page you provided me was reliant on the oort cloud being true, which hasn’t been proven. No it hasn’t been discovered, if your talking about the space.com link read the line “but most are believed to inhabit in an area known as the Oort Cloud”… In the nasa article go under “read more” and under significant dates read 1950: Astronomer Jan Oort theorizes that a vast population of comets may exist in a huge cloud on the distant edges of our solar system. Also read the “read more” page terminology as it uses uncertain terminology when describing the oort cloud like… “Oort Cloud is believed…” “Oort Cloud probably…” “The objects in the Oort Cloud and in the Kuiper Belt are presumed” also, read the Wikipedia article on the oort cloud… particularly the first line “The Oort is a hypothesized spherical cloud of…” Now what is a hypothesis? Yeah, that’s right. The non-proven and non-discovered Oort cloud. YEC ARG II: Soft Tissue in fossils That’s not necessary true that all of them would have soft tissue if they were thousands of years old. For the bones without soft tissue might simply be decayed more depending on preservation, but not necessary millions of years older. Speaking of fossils and fractions, if the earth was billions of years old, where are all the fossils anyway? If you think about it, your backyard should be a full graveyard, but there is so few of them in the world. Also there is some problems with that wiki article…. Like the first part in it “Mineralized tissue” While I know that b-rex’s soft tissue was NON fossilized, as all the mineral dissolved away… (see http://youtu.be...) However I don’t need to know that to figure out it is flawed, as it says “However, in some circumstances the soft tissues will also be mineralized…” Okay, what about the other “some” circumstances when it is not mineralized? Also the second one mentions “ leave impressions or other traces in the rock…” I’m talking about a bone, not a rock. Also the folks on rational wiki probably aren’t paleontologists, just saying, so the rest of the article isn’t really worth my time to refute. Rationalwiki has got to be one of the most unreliable sources on the planet. YEC ARG III: Very Little Salt in the Sea I’m going to have to respond to this in the next round as I’m out of time. Con’s source material is lengthy and don’t have time to review all of it, so I’ll respond to it in next round. YEC ARG IV: Earth’s magnetic Decay I’ll respond to this next round. Out of time. Rebutt: Conclusion Yes, I know that it relies on “leaps of logic” from assumptions. But that’s science, its ballgame is observation not factual logic. 4.6 billion years more definitive? You do know that the earth’s “4.55” age is based on meteorite rocks, not earth rocks right? It’s like determining the age of someone by using the age of somebody else, that’s how bad it is. CLOSING STATEMENT In response to your closing statement... I’ll tell you what, read genesis 1-3 and if you can disprove Adam and eve 100%, throw an argument out in next round and I’ll refute it if I got extra time. And I probably won’t bring new arguments as there is so much material in the debate already to sift through. --------------- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.sciencedaily.com... [3] http://www.healthline.com...