Biblical Creationism has enough evidence to be considered a Scientific Theory

Due to an unfortunate, unseen complication with character limits (see comments section), Pro had to forfeit his last round.In order to allow for the continuation of the debate, Pro has posted his argument in the following web document:https://docs.google.com...INTRODUCTION REBUTTAL"If you're trying to address voters to get votes, to this I say to the voters, make this man fat with votes. Make his bowels burst with vote oblivion. For I"m not here to win this kind of debate,"Um, talking to the audience is the way many formal debates are conducted... I wasn't trying to gain votes... I was just following a standard debate format...REBUTTAL 1: DISCUSSION ON TOPICALITY"But the thing is, it"s impossible to know if it"s a science theory. For voters can disagree with each other. I"m just saying hey, there is no way to know the truth."Generally, the scientific community as a whole would decide what constitutes for "enough" evidence. Since we are in a debating community rather than a scientific community, we must go for the next best thing: asking the debating community.Simple logic. I'm not sure why you're still talking about this 3 rounds into the debate."So biblical creationism doesn"t need evidence to be a scientific theory, or it could be called a science theory in PROGRESS, which is still a science theory"Wrong. String Theory and Multiverse Theory are actually in the process of collecting viable evidence, and they already do have some already. Meanwhile, Creationism has continued the same level of evidence ever since it was dreamed up 4000 years ago: none.REBUTTAL 2: INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARGUMENT"Affirming the consequent? It"s clearly design" DNA, that"s code! Have you ever seen a computer program itself? NEVER."Actually, DNA is a complex organic compound; we just like to call it "code" to help grasp the concept a bit easier.And computer programming code can't self-replicate, so it is not subject to mutation, much less the evolutionary process as a whole."It's clearly design"? I could just as easily say "It's clearly evolution"."my burden of proof is to prove that it has enough evidence to be a scientific theory, not to prove that it is true, for science does not possess truth for it contradicts itself, and truth does not contradict."I know... there is no such thing as definitive proof in science. However, this entire argument is invalid because it is an "Affirming the Consequent" logical fallacy.I could just as easily state the perfection of life here on Earth is proof that aliens from a parallel universe came and created it all as a part of a biological experiment. There is just as much proof for that as there is for an Intelligent Designer: none. Just an argument based in logical fallacy."Do you need intelligent design not to be true because you need evolution to validate your secular beliefs? That"s a bad reason. You do know that evolution is astronomically nigh impossible, so there is a possible world of where it isn"t true"I don't accept intelligent design because there is no evidence.I accept evolution because there IS evidence.No self-respecting scientist thinks that evolution is undeniable fact. They know there is a small room for error.And by the way, I'm a theistic evolutionist, so the problem of improbability is solved for me. The rest of this section is full of critique of Evolution, which is irrelevant to the debate since it is a PRO-CREATIONISM debate and not a anti-Evolution debate. But, yes, abiogenesis IS part of the theory of Evolution, and it HAS been proven numerous times. "You"re forgetting that pretty much all the evidence can be reinterpreted into a biblical creationism worldview."Not DNA and Fossil evidence. With the time constraints set by Young Earth Creationism and the story of Noah's Ark, those two lines of evidence solely go in Evolution's favor."But anyway, how do you know that evolution has all the evidence in favor of it? Do you have a degree in science?"Reading, reading, reading, and reading. No degree yet, but that's soon to come."Con didn"t say anything on the matter [of human wisdom], so just felt like mentioning since next round is his last to respond to it if at all."I grouped that in with intelligent design, since a complex mind would be part of such an argument...REBUTTAL 3: YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM"Prove science working off of baseless assumptions, hmm" Oh easy, the Oort cloud! You keep saying it"s been discovered, I disagree, therefore it implies baselessness."Just because YOU disagree doesn't make it baseless! I have cited some very reliable sources that have AFFIRMED its existence, and all you're doing is denying it!"I declare "space.com"" unreliable, and a LIAR. And to raise the stakes, I"ll point out that on rationalwiki[2] (another source of con"s) also claims this in their Oort cloud section" I claim it to be a LIAR for misinformation, and unreliable."The validity of RationalWiki is debatable, though its sources are clearly displayed for all to view...But Space.Com is perfectly reliable; the only reason you're rejecting it is because it doesn't support your opinion.That is completely and utterly irrational."Well if soft tissue is rock, does that look like rock to you in the video? It looks like non fossilized organic soft tissue to me. So your argument is really irrelevant. And I still stick by it that Rationalwiki is unreliable."Obviously you didn't even try reading the scientific explanation for soft tissue preservation... This is a bit ridiculous; instead of actually countering the information presented in my sources, you are simply dismissing the sources as "unreliable", all while using Wikipedia and AnswersInGenesis yourself!CONCLUSION REBUTTAL"...Which also makes it nigh-impossible to disprove radio dating for if I showed proof that it doesn"t work, the simple hard-hearted response is 'we don"t care.'"But you haven't shown proof. It does work. The nay-sayers are mostly Creationists whose opinions would obviously be biased in favor of such a stance.The yay-sayers are real geologists who, while admitting that it isn't perfect, have much more first-hand experience with it."...However I would like to point out that not all scientific theories are required to be fully proven... If scientific theory isn"t required to be fully proven, then I"m not required to fully prove creationism for it to be valid scientific theory."False. It must be proven to the point that there is almost no doubt. I do not believe you have done that, as Intelligent design is a logical fallacy and you mostly countered my rebuttals to the YEC arguments by dismissing my sources for no reason other than that they contradict your opinons.Please do feel free to leave a summary of your points for round 4 argument, though you may not feel the need to do so, since you already did in your round 3. Just be sure not to post any arguments or rebuttals so as to keep the number of rounds we both had the same.I'd like to end off the debate by thanking you for engaging in this debate with me and thanking the voters for reading such a lengthy debate :)