Biblical Creationism has enough evidence to be considered a Scientific Theory

I was planning on formatting my arguments as if they were addressed to the voters. However, my opponent has chosen to address his arguments directly to me, and as such, it is proper that I change my format to be directly addressed to him as well.DISCUSSION ON TOPICALITY"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."I thought I clarified this last round. I'm not going to decide whether or not your presented evidences are enough, because that isn't my call to make. I just have to refute your evidences to the best of my ability. The voters decide if enough "un-refuted" evidence is left over to constitute a scientific theory based on the definition given in round 1, and it DOES take more than one evidence to be scientific theory, as my next point will address."All current theories are supported by numerous evidence? That"s not true, "You gave the examples of the String theory and Multiverse theory. However, these are theories in PROGRESS. They are on the frontiers of human knowledge, currently being researched by the top scientists around the world. And even so, they have quite a bit of evidence (1)(2)(3). Why weren't you able to give examples of any of the many, many other scientific theories? I know why; because scientific theories really ARE that well-supported, so you were only able to pick on the ones which are still in progress.INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARGUMENT: REBUTTALI will start by pointing out something that I didn't point out in my original rebuttal. This whole argument is an "Affirming the Consequent" logical fallacy (4). Simply showing the predicted end result of a theory does not prove the theory correct. Now, it would be okay to use such an argument if there was EVIDENCE affirming intelligent design. But there is NOT, so this argument holds no ground in this debate.No scientific theory is based off of logical fallacy. "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."That is false... the origins of life on Earth is exactly what Evolution is attempting to explain.It explains the development of life on earth from elements, to inorganic compounds, to organic compounds, to genetic material, to primitive cells, to prokaryotes, to eukaryotes, to multi-cellular organisms, and so on. There is no NEED for an intelligent designer according to the theory of Evolution."...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"However, in all cases where science contradicts itself, both contradicting theories have numerous, compelling evidences; Creationism and Evolution are not like that. Evolution has all the evidence in favor of it, while Creationism has arguments based in logical fallacy.YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM ARGUMENTS: REBUTTALS"this is science not philosophy, so factual logic is a little foreign here (not calling scientist dumb, but they often work with assumptions,"Please prove that by providing an example of science working of off a baseless assumption.It is very rare for scientists to believe anything without solid evidence, and when they do, there is always some reasonable basis in their assumption. The assumptions that most creationist arguments rely on have already been proven false."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"That is false. It HAS been discovered. It may have STARTED as a proposition, but since then, we HAVE discovered and identified several of the objects in it (5).As for the use of uncertain verbs, that is standard within the scientific community. It is always looked down upon to openly declare a scientific theory as fact, as that goes against the very nature of science which is to continually improve upon itself."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."That is because conditions needed for the formation of a fossil are rather rare."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."I feel that you have simply dismissed a source because the evidence doesn't match your opinion. The article clearly states that mineralization is the process by which bones turn into rock. That is why fossils are rock and not bone...Also, you can check the sources that the article is based off of. They are very reliable. "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."I'm sorry to say this, but that statement shows that either you don't know or don't want to know how radiometric dating works (6).CONCLUSION"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"The burden of proof is on you... There is lots of genetic evidence that would go against the idea of all humanity being descended from one pair of human beings (7), but YOU are the one making the claim, so YOU must prove it in order for it to be considered a scientific theory."I"m going to have to respond to this in the next round as I"m out of time."I certainly hope that you get to address these points next round. Also, please be aware that when you took this debate, you agreed not to post anything other than a short summary of your points in round 4, so this next argument is going to be your last chance to attack my rebuttals and defend your arguments. SOURCES(1) http://www.space.com...(2) http://www.theguardian.com...(3) http://guardianlv.com...(4) http://rationalwiki.org...(5) http://www.space.com...(6) http://ncse.com...(7) http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...