Todays Debate comes down to the basic question. Does science disprove faith in God? If science fails to 100% do so then the thesis is in my favor. As if God is not proven false by science faith is not incompatible. And I say to you no modern scientific evidence has disproven God. You may point to Evolution, or the age of the earth, etc. but many people believe in God and those. For example old earth creationist, theistic evolution, perspectives held by apologist William Lane Craig. This shows that modern apologists for christianity do not see modern science as something that is incompatible with faith. There are also christian perspectives that Will say evolution/old earth is false. And they have arguments for that. So no matter if modern science is true, or false... faith can coexist with it. And that is why it is compatible. Thank you.

My contention with my opponent is that he fails to realize science has faith as well. so his own argument goes against himself. For example the Oort cloud. Currently, there is no observational evidence of any kind for an Oort cloud. So, as a creationist, I have no particular reason to think that there is such a thing. As far as I’m concerned, the Oort cloud exists only in the mind of evolutionists. This is a 'Rescuing device' Which saves the Evolutionist worldview. But it is not observed and is theoretical. If the scientists can have things that are not observed but they think are true, is that not faith? And if your own side has faith, why cant we? And the contention that faith cant be tested or corrected is false. That is why debates about faith happen. Because people use evidence and facts to look at it and correct or test it. Science often protects too. both naturalist and Creationist worldviews have rescuing devices that are by definition, 'Faith'. And that does not mean they cannot be corrected or disproven. For example Mormonism is disproven by the fact that the tablets Smith claimed to translate to get his message from did not actually say what he claimed they meant. Or its disproven by the logical problems of infinitely reducing numbers of Gods. these are things that can be tested and debated. Another point to note is faith a lot of the time is asking the epistemology questions which science alone cannot answer. And because of that both can coexist.

First things first the fact check is wrong. Astronomer Carl Sagan agree's with my claim stated above “Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not yet a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence.” Science says you can observe and change. but it has many theories that are not observed but assumed. That is by definition faith. Now Statistics saying what the average American thinks are irrelevant to the conversation. And the statistics are unverified on the specific claim made. We keep hearing that faith says reinterpret retreat protect. But we see that science has not necessarily disproved the objects of faith. My opponent fails to recognize that both sides use rescuing devices for gaps in their worldview. If they dont let God believers use them why should naturalistic worldviews be allowed them? its a inconsistent standard. We also see creationist scientists that disagree and do say science supports faith. Such as Jason Lisle, Georgia Purdom, Andrew Snelling, etc. They say science supports their faith. They write lengthy articles on how it does. They Look at the same evidence that the other side does. The real problem is the world view. But guess what? both worldviews have life saving devices that are by definition faith. So if the creationist side doesn't get them we should be consistent and neither should the naturalist side. That is the problem tonight. Faith is shown to be compatible with science. it looks at the same evidence people without faith use. They dont deny science at all and use it as a tool just like a naturalistic person would. If that doesn't show how they are compatible what will? Thank you and goodbye.