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

Science and Theology: a) I have not brought ‘theology’ into this debate of science. You are the only person who brought a criticism of theology up in relation to a single scientific fact. So in as far as the Science you brought up is being used to challenge the logical validity of a particular theological premises, the theology of God’s creating power has to be brought up. You point was that somehow the scientific fact we know about how long it takes for a stars light to reach the earth proves the earth has to be old, and that because of this YEC’s take on history and science is not compatible or reconcilable with Science. But that’s absurd. And for you to even make the charge means you have completely ignored the defining premises of the beliefs you have been talking about. The Premises of the YEC is that the earth was created by God. If you did not want to debate ‘the view that God created the universe 6,000 years ago (approximately) is contradictory to science because of the distance of the stars and the speed of light.” Then you should not have created this debate in the way you did. You should have made a resolution not against YEC at all but YED (Young Earth Darwinism) and argued it contradicts what we know from the science of Astronomy to view the earth as younger than 10,000 years from a Darwinian and a Godless perspective. But you did not call out some Atheist view of the earth being young being disproven by the light-years distance of the stars. You specifically challenge Young Earth Creationism. Where the questions at hand has to changed from “How does the universe work” to “How did God Create the Universe” and the objective is at the least to convince me that I must believe God created the Universe millions of years ago because of the distance of the stars. Fallacy of ignoring the Premise in question: b) If you really want to debate about pure science then you should not have created your charge in the form of a specific attack on a religious concept. Because you have its my duty to show how in the only medium ground we both have, and appeal to what is logical and rational, that there is nothing irreconcilable with YEC and the Stars. And there is not, as a showed, from a YEC standpoint its not only feasible that God created the light from the stars having already traveled to earth, but it would be EXPECTED that God would create them that way. Polonium Halo’s: c) What I consider most interesting is you have actually done nothing to argue against this point of mine yourself. You have discredited the sources as ‘biased’ and then ironically as a better source on radioactive dating provided a WIKIPIDEA link. d) You have appealed to the authorities of others on some of my own links, whilst remaining absolutely silent on the issue of the science of radioactive dating yourself. e) I tried to keep this debate scientific by making an appeal to a particular aspect of science, the incredibly short half life’s of Polonium and the size of the rings they should be expected to leave in a million year old earth and the inconsistency of that with the size they have actually been found to have. f) That you are a stanch atheist there is no doubt to me, I fully realized that when accepting this debate. You challenged the rationality and the ‘science’ of YEC beliefs over a supposed incompatibility with ‘science’. To be ‘irreconcilable’ means both cannot be true, one has to false for the other to be true. So for your single argument to have any effect on the issue it would mean you have to be arguing its not possible for both YEC view to be true and the Science of Astronomy to be true. I accept the debate to show that argument rationally has to be a failed one. g) My own point was actually a much more worthy of a ‘debate of science’ between the two of us since I contest a particular conclusion that should be reached when considering the Polonium Halos. That is purely a debate over our understanding of science, and makes only appeals to radiometric dating. I am very disappointed that you arrogantly chose to appeal to secular authorities in the scientific community and not actually give one single rebuttal point on the issue yourself. h) The pitcher was included to show what they look like obviously. Let’s people see better than some of the other links exactly what phenomena I wanted to talk about. Conclusion: Even if you yourself are a stanch atheist reading this debate preparing to vote, and you agree with everything my opponent has ranted about, “even the pope says the bible is not science”, and are thinking “he’s preaching to the choir!” please try and look at this debate objectively anyway and consider these things…. 1) The specific theological premises I have discussed a round ago is the specific premises my opponent challenged. I have to show how the premise is reconcilable with science to appropriately answer my opponent’s single argument. 2) Pro fialed to give rebutal to my Polonium Halo point.