The Instigator
Con (against)
9 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Biblical Creationism has enough evidence to be considered a Scientific Theory

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,571 times Debate No: 44483
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (2)




I will be arguing that Biblical Creationism does NOT have enough evidence to be considered a scientific theory.

Definition of a Scientific Theory (1):
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step known as a "theory"in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."

My opponent will have the burden of proof in this debate, so they will be putting forth their argument in the first round (i.e. no round exclusively for acceptance).

In addition, in order to ensure that we both have the same number of rounds to debate, I would like to request that my opponent abstains from posting in round 5.

I wish my future opponent good luck and eagerly await his argument.



I thank my opponent for opening this debate, as science and religion in the same pot is a controversial matter, and therefore an interesting subject to debate. While the discussion if religion has its place in science is heated today, Biblical Creationism does try to solve the problem by bridging the gap between them. Is Biblical Creationism a science theory? Yes, I believe it is. Should you? Maybe, how am I supposed to know that? But none the less I’ll provide reasons why I think it is, so such a belief is not completely irrational to believe.

| Discussion on Topicality |

1) The Definition is arbitrary

In the part of the definition “if enough evidence accumulates…” the question comes how much evidence do I need to show in order to prove that this can be considered a scientific theory? For the sake of this debate I argue that all I need to provide is at least 1 evidence for it to sufficiently satisfy the criteria, as I’m not proving that it “is” a scientific theory or that it will be received to be one, but could “potentially” be considered as a scientific theory. For my reasoning “if Its potential, then it could considered.”

2) Pro’s Burden of Proof

Con did mention that I had the burden of proof, but didn’t specify in what. So I’ll go ahead and lay it out for clarity sake.

    1. Biblical Creationism is a valid hypothesis.
    2. Biblical Creationism does atleast have 1 evidence in support of it.
If I prove these 2 burden of proofs then I have succedded in objectively claiming that "Biblical Creationism has enough evidence to be considered a Scientific Theory"

3) Is Biblical Creationism a hypothesis?

First of all we need to define what a hypothesis is “A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon” [1] Now what is Biblical Creationism? “Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.” [2] So the explanation to the proposed hypothesis is a supernatural creator being (God) and the phenomena that it is explaining would be the existence of the universe, earth and life.

So yes, it is a hypothesis. And I have satisfied my first burden of proof.

| Evidence |

A] Evidence from Common Observations

Observation I: The human body does show “made” characteristics

When objects are “made” by an intelligent entity it normally leaves some characteristics in that “made” object. For say an Xbox 360 shows some fascinating architectural design underneath it, and we know it’s a “made” object by an intellectual entity (man). There many similar examples, ranging from car, computer, furniture etc… that does show a consistent pattern of design to it.

The human body does show clear characteristics of design, from artery systems to visual sensory perception, there is no doubt that it’s consistent with what is perceived in knowingly made objects. This observation would clearly imply a creator when confronted with the human body.

“I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.”
----- Psalm 139:14

Observation II: Humanity possess a great deal of wisdom

Simply put, wisdom is “the effective understanding and use of information.”

Why are humans the only species on the planet that seems to possess wisdom? When you compare our wisdom with that of any species of the earth, you find that our wisdom is astronomically off the charts. For do you perceive a panda playing chess, or a bird doing astral physics? No. For there is no common ancestor that remotely has the capacity to possess even an ounce of man’s wisdom. Evolutionary speaking this capacity spontaneously popped into existence, which is a problem because evolution requires a smooth supply of common relationships (ancestors) for it to function to explain a phenomena. Outside of man, wisdom is very alien to this world. However, if we were made in the image of a wise everlasting creator, it may explain where man acquired their capacity to have wisdom.

For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;
---- - Proverbs 2:6

] Evidence from Young Earth Creationism

I decided to log into sites like ICR & Answers in Genesis and check out some common arguments on the subject (what fun!). There is a connection between young earth and biblical creation, for if a young earth was true, then our designed world is easier to explain from the standpoint of a productive & industrious creator then that of the tardy and procrastinative natural evolution.

I have chosen to divide out the tags in YEC ARGS (young earth creationist arguments) for organizational sake.

Short-Lived comics

Comets can’t survive in our solar system because it gets evaporated to quickly for them to be billions of years old… they’ve been searching for the imaginary Oort cloud, but I’m confident it doesn’t exist for there is no evidence for it.

This does have an interesting impact, as it implies that the solar system is younger then billions. If the solar system is younger it does follow that the earth is younger as well.

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the
counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

----- Isaac Newton, father of Physics

YEC ARG II: Soft Tissue in fossils

Chances are you’ve heard this argument before, but none the less I shall tack it on to my post. There has been found soft tissue in fossilized bone, probably the more popular one being the dinosaur bone discovered by Mary Schweitzer. This is kind of a problem, as you’re not supposed to find tissue in millions of year old dinosaur bones. The tissue should only take thousands, not millions to decay.

YEC ARG III: Very Little Salt in the Sea

Roughly about 458 tons of salt mixes into the ocean each year [7]. Yet only about 27% of it its removed yearly [8]. If sodium accumulated at the same rates of today, where is all the salt? For if the earth was billions of years old, then there would be seen LOT more sodium in the sea.

YEC ARG IV: Earth’s magnetic Decay

As you probably know, earth’s powerful magnetic field blocks harmful solar radiation. However there is another tidbit of information that should be noted, the total energy in the magnetic field decays at roughly 5% each year[5]. And with a little bit more research, that the magnetic field half-life is about 1,465.[6] so every 1,500 years ago , the magnetic field has more energy flowing through the earth’s core.

This is somewhat a problem if you believe that the earth is older than 20-25 thousand years, for the earth would be freakishly hot.

See you wish to better understand the argument.






[6] see page 8, figure 8.

[7] M. Meybeck, “Concentrations des eaux fluvials en majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans,”

[8] see abstract.

Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for his excellently thought-out argument.
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 Topicality

My 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 Observations

My 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 Creationism

Such 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 Structures

There 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 Creationism

My 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 Creationism
Therefore, I will have to disprove each of Pro's YEC argument's.

1) Short-Lived Comets

My 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 Fossils

Here, 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 Sea

My 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 Decay

My 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)


In 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,


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!



| Discussion on Topicality |

The definition is arbitrary

I know you disagree, that’s the point. For 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. But what if we swapped positions and argued on if evolution has enough evidence to be theory… I’d just sit back and say, “assumption, assumption, I say! Not convinced.” For by that definition evolution wouldn’t be a theory because I don’t consider it to be. In fact you could do it with any theory, geology, physics, etc.

All current theories are supported by numerous evidence? That’s not true, some of string theory (like m-theory) doesn’t have any good evidence, and even if it did it certainly doesn’t have numerous as you say. They’re usually just pulling your leg on evidence for the multiverse. There’s not exactly a whole lot of evidence for black holes either.

Also your making an argument from current day scientific theory, there are some historical ones that didn’t have much evidence… like Welteislehre, though more modern ones might be Einstein’s static universe.

| Evidence |

1) Rebutt: That does not specifically prove Creationism

Okay, misconception here. I’m not trying to “specifically prove Creationism”, I can’t. What I’m trying to prove is that it has enough evidence to be considered a Scientific Theory, its different then proving creationism for scientific theories aren’t required to be proven but “inferred” by evidence. For example, in physics it states that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference, however I myself can’t prove that, nor any physicist alive. But, there is evidence that heavily “infers” this, but we can’t possibly know for certain UNIVERSALLY, for how can we possibly know that light behaves identically in a googleplexian amount of other solar systems when we’ve never tested it outside of our own? It is an assumption, which is the back bone to science.

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. Evolution is basically a theory that describes the relationships of other ancestral species, the problem is where did the ancestors get there design? For all ancestors are complex enough to see this design observation. The thing is you’ll have to claim spontaneous generation to say evolution can answer the origins(which evolution theory does NOT claim!) Biblical creationism solves this phenomena, and explains it better then evolution as it shows where we get the design. It was simply created by an everlasting intelligent being.

Also 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[1]. It’s kind of like whatever explanation floats your boat. Likewise even if evolution does contradict with creationism, that doesn’t mean they can’t both be scientific theories.

This argument DOES heavily infer a creator. While I do agree with con here that it doesn’t prove creationism, it doesn’t have to be for a scientific theory.

2) Rebutt: Vestigial Structures

In Darwin’s days I would understand why the appendix would be viewed as a useless organ for they had little evidence for its function, however our knowledge have grown considerably since then. The appendix function aids the immune system as it harbors good bacteria for the gut[2]. As to coccyx, it does provide attachment for tendons, ligaments, and muscles[3]. And personally I’m happy that God didn’t deprive me of nipples, for they possess a great deal of nerve tissue in them to stimulate my sex drive… I’m not sure about you, but my breasts feels great on top of hers.

As you see, vestigial structures are highly debatable. We may not know everything about the body, but like the appendix, our knowledge is growing.

B] Evidence from Young Earth Creationism

YEC ARG I: Short-Lived comics

Yes I know it assumes, it’s particularly the assumption from Uniformitarianism and it’s perfectly a valid science assumption. I’m going to be straight with you here, as this is science not philosophy, so factual logic is a little foreign here (not calling scientist dumb, but they often work with assumptions, it’s just simply the nature of their work, nothing wrong with that, its impossible not to). It’s not uncommon seeing reasoning through assumptions for ALL old earth beliefs are based off of the assumption that processes that we see today have operated the way they have. It’s ok, though uniformitarianism probably isn’t true (could be), but it doesn’t matter for this is science, not something that has to be logically true. If you want to do something logically true, I suggest mathematics.

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, if your talking about the link read the line “but most are believed to inhabit in an area known as the Oort Cloud”… In the nasa article go under “read more” and under significant dates read

1950: Astronomer Jan Oort theorizes that a vast population of comets may exist in a huge cloud on the distant edges of our solar system.

Also read the “read more” page terminology as it uses uncertain terminology when describing the oort cloud like… “Oort Cloud is believed…” “Oort Cloud probably…” “The objects in the Oort Cloud and in the Kuiper Belt are presumed” also, read the Wikipedia article on the oort cloud… particularly the first line “The Oort is a hypothesized spherical cloud of…” Now what is a hypothesis? Yeah, that’s right. The non-proven and non-discovered Oort cloud.

YEC ARG II: Soft Tissue in fossils

That’s not necessary true that all of them would have soft tissue if they were thousands of years old. For the bones without soft tissue might simply be decayed more depending on preservation, but not necessary millions of years older. 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.

Also there is some problems with that wiki article…. Like the first part in it “Mineralized tissue” While I know that b-rex’s soft tissue was NON fossilized, as all the mineral dissolved away… (see However I don’t need to know that to figure out it is flawed, as it says “However, in some circumstances the soft tissues will also be mineralized…” Okay, what about the other “some” circumstances when it is not mineralized? Also the second one mentions “ leave impressions or other traces in the rock…” 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.

YEC ARG III: Very Little Salt in the Sea

I’m going to have to respond to this in the next round as I’m out of time. Con’s source material is lengthy and don’t have time to review all of it, so I’ll respond to it in next round.

YEC ARG IV: Earth’s magnetic Decay

I’ll respond to this next round. Out of time.

Rebutt: Conclusion

Yes, I know that it relies on “leaps of logic” from assumptions. But that’s science, its ballgame is observation not factual logic.

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.


In response to your closing statement... 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. And I probably won’t bring new arguments as there is so much material in the debate already to sift through.





Debate Round No. 2


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.


"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.


I 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.

""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.


"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).


"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.




gryephon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


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:


"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...


"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.


"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...


"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 """ 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!


"...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 :)


The Pro position officially recognizes Romanii (Con) for his kind conduct, for he posted a link to my arguments when I was having some complications with the character limit (instead of taking advantage of my forfeit). When voting, please under “who had better conduct” put it for con.

Thank you for taking the time to read the Debate, for it was a long one. And I thank my opponent for debating me.

As agreed I won’t be arguing anymore in this round.

Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Also, notice Ham did not bring up the fluctuating magnetic field, because it has been destroyed.
He was very snooty at Nye's continual asserting that the Kentucky education system is something for the US to be ashamed of.
Which the US government is ashamed of.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
BTW: Creationists are truly the Epic-Idiots of our Era.
They have taken over from the Flat-Earth Society in that Title.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
True Dawn, Ham has no answers, that is explained by NoAnswers-In-Genesis.
Yes a great, Australian site, from the same origins as Ken Ham, yet 200% more Authoritative and Right.

Ham has no right to teach anybody, anything.
He lost his scientific cred decades ago.

An engineer like Nye has infinitely more credibility to teach science than Ham.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Yes Dawn, Nye was just trying to get Kentucky students over the Scientific Intelligence Line that they are slipping well below, because of Creationist garbage.

Though for more information on Pro's false weakening Magnetic Field concept that it proves a young Earth:
Which has lots of genuine resources that destroy their claim.
The Earth magnetic field weakens, then flips in a cycle, some time in the near future, north will be south.
It happened many thousands of years ago and it will happen again.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 2 years ago
I just watched the ENTIRE Nye/Ham debate.

Ham is really snotty about who highjacks and teaching people how to think
and how he has the answers.

Nye just showed math and the 9000 year old tree
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
On Scientific Theory: "
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step"known as a theory"in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Ken Ham has repeatedly tried to get Scientists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins to debate with him live, they both are aware of the credibility game Ham is playing.
Whether they win or lose the debate, Ham and Creationism Wins credibility, by just having the debate.

The highest they have been able to con into debating Ham is Bill Nye, an Engineer, but who happens to have a public Science show which gave him Scientific Credibility by popularity only.
It's this popularity of Bill Nye being the Science Guy that Ham is trying to steal some Credibility from.

This is why Bill has to go into Denial of Scientific Knowledge and drop his own credibility to drag down Ham and Creation's credibility.
If he fails to do this, Ham and Creationism wins Scientific Credibility, regardless of the outcome.

I'm hoping Bill degrades his own Credibility for this reason.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Bill Nye is playing into Hamster's hands.
Giving Creationism credibility by debating publicly with Hamster.

Bill will have to be so completely honest, state that he is only an engineer and not a scientist and thus reduce the Creds for Ham by Hamster not arguing with anybody who is a recognized scientist.

Genuine scientists will not debate with Ham for that reason, because for science to debate publicly with Creationism gives the appearance that Science finds Creationism an adversary. Which is totally untrue.

Creationism is not and can never be an adversary, nor alternative to Science.

If we found evidence destroying much of The Theory Of Evolution (the strongest, most evidence supported Scientific Theory in existence) then Creationism will still not be considered, because only Scientific Theories can replace a Scientific Theory.
So the next Scientific Theory to Evolution will take it's place. This would likely be Evolution Version 2, or the original Evolution patched up to explain the areas it was deemed faulty in.
So far there are no areas where Evolution is at fault.

Occam's Razor destroys Creationism, because even though it may seem simple to the Naive, a God Did It Scenario and the evidence needed to support it is extremely, extremely Complex.
According to Occam's Razor, only the Simplest of the Most Complete Explanations will be Acceptable.
Creationism is not a Complete Explanation for life, and it has many Complexities in evidence support.
Thus Occam's Razor would slash it into many pieces and destroy Creationism completely.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
I also forgot to mention about a Scientific Hypothesis having NO PREDETERMINED OUTCOME!

Thus to predetermine an outcome and make the hypothesis fit that outcome is Scientific Fraud!

Creationists start with a Predetermined outcome: "God Did It", and then try to use what little they understand of science or to twist current scientific knowledge and scientists statements to make it appear that Evidence fits their Predetermined, god did it outcome.

Thus Creationism cannot ever be a Hypothesis, nor a Theory because they are simply matching information/evidence/data to a Predetermined Outcome.

Creationism fails again to become a Hypothesis.
Hypothesis is stage 1 towards becoming a Theory (Stage 2).
So Creationism cannot pass the first stage to becoming a Theory, something it cannot ever attain while it asserts the predetermined outcome of God Did It.
They must abandon God completely and examine the evidence without any preconceived notions of an outcome, they they would end up with the same outcome as all the other scientists have.
Because the first science experiments did have God as their preconceived outcome, it is only that the Monks who started scientific experimentation were open minded enough to realize that the results always speak for themselves, and if the results deny God, then God has no part in them.

The Evidence always speaks for itself in Science.
Preconceived human ideology and preconceptions should never speak for the evidence.
Even those Monks doing the first experiments realized this.

But, this is where Creationism it's offshoot I.D. had gone completely Wrong.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago

Bill Nye vs Ken Ham on this very subject! Going live!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Before I read the debate, I was not sure if Pro had found some evidence that I had not seen before in Creationist's arguments which I have studied for the past 30 years, we never know in science what somebody may discover, yet I was wrong, I've seen it all before and seen all of it destroyed by genuine Rational Scientists. Rational Scientists is something ICR, The Discovery Institute, and Answers-in-Genesis still haven't acquired. Con's argument had more Authoritative sources and more sound, rational conclusions. Pro's sources were neither authoritative, scientific nor rationally validated by Rational Scientists.
Vote Placed by TheSquirrel 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con as requested by Pro. Pro was unable to establish his BOP by demonstrating BC to be a collection of repeatedly tested hypotheses. The evidence given were refuted.