Biblical Creationism has enough evidence to be considered a Scientific Theory

I look forward to a challenging debate. Because my only role in this debate is to refute my opponent's contentions, I will address each part of his argument one by one. A. Discussion on TopicalityMy opponent claims that there is no standard as to what is "enough evidence" to make a hypothesis a scientific theory. He then goes on to say that he only needs to provide one valid evidence for the criteria to be met. However, I would have to disagree. All of the current theories which are held as "scientific" have been supported by numerous pieces of evidence, as well as repeated testing. It would take quite a bit more than "1 evidence" to prove Creationism to be a scientific theory. My opponent's job is simply to provide as much valid evidence as he can in favor of Creationism being a scientific theory. My job, then, is to attempt to refute all of the evidence provided, reducing Creationism to a hypothesis status. The voters will be the ones deciding who has done their job better. I apologize for not clarifying that in round 1. My opponent also takes the time to prove that Creationism is a hypothesis, but that is not necessary because Creationism has already been widely-accepted as a hypothesis in the scientific community. However, a hypothesis cannot logically be treated as "fact" until it has been advanced to the next level of scientific validity: a theory. The purpose of this debate is to prove whether or not the hypothesis of Creationism is ready for that. B. Evidence from Common ObservationsMy opponent argues that many traits in the human body, such as the human brain, are so perfectly designed that they must have been created. However, there are two problems with that:1) That does not specifically prove CreationismSuch perfection can just as easily explained by other, more well-supported theories such as Evolution (i. e. natural selection favors "perfected" traits like large brains). Let's say we are given the number 4. We cannot automatically assume that we got this number by (2 + 2) just because that seem the most intuitive. We could also have gotten that number by (5 - 1) or (3 + 1). Pointing out the supposed end result of Creationism does not prove it to be true.2) Vestigial StructuresThere are also a number of IMperfections in the human body (e. g. appendix, coccyx, male nipples) which most likely wouldn't exist if the human body was intelligently designed. C. Evidence from Young Earth CreationismMy opponent argues that if he can prove Young Earth Creationism, then he would have proven Biblical Creationism as a whole. I agree, since the source of YEC is a part of Biblical CreationismTherefore, I will have to disprove each of Pro's YEC argument's.1) Short-Lived CometsMy opponent contends that since comets have life spans limited to only several thousand years, and comets were supposedly formed during the formation of our solar system, it is not possible for the solar system to be older than several thousand years old. However, this assumes that the comets we see today were all formed in when the solar system formed, and that is not necessarily true. There are many other origins of comets (1)(2), such as the Oork cloud which HAS been discovered (3), and other systems' formations.2) Soft Tissue in FossilsHere, my opponent argues that since soft tissue has been found in ancient fossils, those fossils could not be older than few thousand years, as opposed to their previous estimates of being millions of years old. However, if all fossils of that epoch were only a few thousand years old, than ALL of them would have soft tissue in them, but only a fraction of them do. On top of that, there is a valid scientific explanation for how that soft tissue gets preserved (4).3) Very Little Salt in the SeaMy opponent goes on to argue that if the oceans have been getting salt mixed in to them at their current rate for billions of years, than the oceans would be MUCH saltier than they are right now. Therefore, the oceans, and logically the Earth, can't be that old. Unfortunately (for my opponent), this argument assumes that the rate of salt being added to the sea has always been the same, which it has not (5)(6).4) Earth's Magnetic DecayMy opponent argues that at the current rate of magnetic decay, after a billion years, Earth's magnetosphere would be vitrtually non-existent, so Earth must be much, much younger than that. However, an in depth study, done on the evidence behind the initial proposal of this argument, revealed that this argument is based on flawed, heavily biased evidence, and thus, is inaccurate (7)ConclusionIn response to all 4 of these YEC arguments at once, I would like to say that they all rely on leaps in logic to make assumptions on what Earth's age roughly SHOULD be based on current trends. Meanwhile, the evidence that Earth is 4.55 billion years old is much more definitive, based off of accurate methods of determining age such as carbon-dating, CLOSING STATEMENT I will now finish up, by pointing out to my opponent that Biblical Creationism includes the story of Adam and Eve, so it would be good if he could include some arguments for that aspect of BC along with his new arguments and rebuttals next round. Good luck! SOURCES(1) . http://www.talkorigins.org...(2) . http://www.space.com...(3) . http://solarsystem.nasa.gov...(4) . http://rationalwiki.org...(5) . http://thenaturalhistorian.com...(6) . http://www.oldearth.org...(7) . http://www.talkorigins.org...