Evolution is more likely than Young Earth Creationism

Thank you for your opening arguments. You have some interesting ideas displayed here. As per my own rules, this round will be made completely of refutations, and no new arguments will be presented. 1. Young Earth Theory My opponent states early on: "Sadly, many people misinterpret the Young Earth theory by saying it is all based upon the Bible and that this "religious" Book tops all scientific evidence." Yet in the very next claim says "This is not too far from correct." Basically, in her first paragraph, my opponent is conceding that the Bible's literal interpretation is more important than scientific findings in YEC. In essence, only scientific findings that coincide with a literal interpretation of the Bible are considered. My opponent defines science here. I agree to this definition. My opponent then talks about how naturalism and science are separate entities. I agree. Naturalism will be defined as "the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual" [1]. Both Naturalism and Creationism are philosophical viewpoints (Though I do not quite agree with either). Neither one can claim to be science, rather, only explanations for science's findings. This debate is not, however, about "Which theory is unequivocally correct" but "Which theory is more likely and reasonable." Using Occam's Razor (the same process used in the acceptance of Einstein's theory of time-space continuum) [2] , we can deduce that more than likely, 4 billion year old rocks were not placed on the earth by God in order to fool us, and rather are actually 4 billion years old. Almost every YEC argument violates Occam's razor, meaning that while they cannot fully be disproven, they are far, far less likely. "And although facts are facts, there is no such thing as a fact that absolutely requires a single interpretation." This statement delves a bit into relativism. However, if this is to be taken into account, it also applies to the Bible. I have shown, using science, how a literal interpretation of the Bible is less likely than an evolutionist interpretation. The Charles Darwin statements at the end prove nothing. Darwin was merely acknowledging that his theories could have doubters, as technology was not as strong in his time as it is today (DNA testing was nonexistant). Many of his theories have now been confirmed [3, 4]. A) I'd like proof of those ages, such as a source (not the Bible). This doesn't matter, however, as it doesn't deny evolution. The only part of the Bible that is at odds with evolution is the creation stories. As Pope Benedict XVI states, "[The Creation Stories are] pagan creation accounts on which the biblical story is in part based" [5]. They only explain that God created the world and that humanity at some point rebelled against God. Nowhere does it deny or exclude evolution unless it is taken completely literally. "Old Earth Theory is based on assumptions with a few pieces of scientific evidence, but no historical evidence at all." This statement is extremely fallacious. If no humans existed to write history, how could there be historical evidence? Furthermore, Genesis was not written by Adam and Eve, but rather later Hebrew authors, who never met Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Noah, etc. [6]. This has no more historicity and much less scientific authenticity than the Old Earth Theory. B) "There is nothing wrong with believing the Bible, when there is scientific evidence to prove it, but if you only take the easy-to-believe stories in the Bible and make them your religion and beliefs the Bible is of less validity and credibility." Correct. This is why YEC is incorrect. No scientific evidence supports your creation story. C) Although only one of these claims is sourced, none of them prove YEC, but rather that the Bible contains an at least partially correct historical record. None of these disprove that evolution happened before these events, nor that the world is old. These have no bearing on the argument. 2. I'm not sure how the big bang has any relevance to this argument. The big bang is a possibility, but the big bang didn't need to happen for evolution to happen. Therefore, it is irrelevant. "The man who started the thought of Evolution didn't have a lot of proof for it at all--just assumptions and a fossil which sparked the idea--but now it is a highly respected theory. Why? My personal opinion used to be that a lot of people hate the thought of us being created or that there's a Higher Being, and the Big Bang and/or Evolution is a good way to get rid of that thought, or a good excuse to tell people when they say a Creator is the only option." Darwin may not have had proof, only evidence and conjecture, but the reason it is respected now is because NOW they have proof [3,4]. He also DID use logic. Darwin used inductive reasoning, a type of logic, to create a theory based on his findings [7]. My opponent seems to think evolutionary science started and ended with Darwin. It didn't. "So, my question for my Christian opponent is, why couldn't have God had the strength and the power enough to make the earth in 6 days?" My opponent supposes evolution is an underestimation of God's power. Evolution has tons of scientific evidence. I don't believe in it because I underestimate God. This question could be just as well turned upon my opponent: Why couldn't God have the power to adhere to His own rules of the universe? If mutations exist, why would God allow them to if the world was already created exactly as He intended? Why couldn't he have created the world through evolution? The honest Young Earth Creationist's answer to all of these is: because the Bible, in my interpretation, tells me he didn't. My opponent's entire next argument stems from false analogy. A computer is not prone to mutations, does not adapt to its environment. I do not claim there was no plan or maker to life or evolution, so again, this argument is irrelevant. Whether God set evolution in motion, or it was a naturalistic force, it is not a false idea. "I believe that the Bible specifically says 'all creatures were made of their own kind.'" No it doesn't [8]. "He said He was finished and He saw that it was good." This is actually a fairly compelling argument. However, this could refer to the eventual development of homo sapiens through evolution and not the initial "BAM, everything suddenly is just as it is in modern day and scientific evidence is ignored" theory. -"The Bible says creatures were created of their own kind, not to be evolved from one kind to another." Nope. -"'Evening came, and then morning' seems to indicate a literal day (Gn. 1:5, etc.)" How could literal evening and morning come if the sun didn't exist yet according to your literalist account? -"Sabbath rest (Ex 20:11) seems to imply six literal days of work, during the Creation week." This is a non sequitur. The Sabbath rest was created as a result of the creation story, not the other way around. This further perpetuates the Israelite need for a "six day creation" metaphor, in order to explain why they were to rest on the seventh day. -"The sun wasn't created until Day 4 in the Bible, but there was life on Day 3 which cannot exist for long times without sunlight" I have already explained this cannot be interpeted literally. Plants couldn't survive at all without the capability to perform photosynthesis. -"If death is an enemy (1Co 15:54) was God's original plan of paradise free from killing, or was it filled with violence, decay, and death? Man was not permitted to eat animals until after the Flood (Gn 9:2-3)." "Death" here actually refers to sin, which was conquered in Christian ideals by Jesus Christ. If God permitted humans to eat animals before Corinthians, part of the New Testament, was written, then eating them was not a sin and therefore was not referred to as "the enemy" here. -"God saw that "it was good and finished" at the end of His creating, not to keep evolving in to different." I have already rebutted the first Part of this statement, and the second part makes no sense. Conclusion My opponent has cited only the Bible, which is not a credible scientific book, as her only resource to prove YEC. All of her other sources go to prove the Bible as correct in instances that have no relevance to YEC. I have cited many scientific and credible resources and rebutted her arguments fully. My resolution stands, only in a literal interpretation of the Bible would YEC be valid. I have given proof that this is not possible. There is only one way to vote, with pro. Thanks. Avodah, and back to you. Sources will be in the comments section, as they don't fit here.