Young Earth Creationism

Thank you for the response. Again, no evidence has been provided by my opponent to argue for a young earth. I know we have 5 rounds, but I'd rather utilize each round efficiently instead of waiting for the later rounds before addressing the main topic. My opponent has called me impatient because I prefer to get to the point, which is the age of the earth and universe. I am going to provide evidence that supports science, show that it is way more likely than a young earth, and debunk any evidence he posts. My original statement said that I challenge my opponent to provide evidence for a young earth and I have yet to see that. Now, I will offer a rebuttal to my opponent's first set of points. 1. Occam's razor states that few assumptions should be made as possible when offering an explanation. By assuming that freewill is supernatural, my opponent is directly contradicting what he is advocating for in his response. The simplest explanation for free will is that it is a direct reflection of our intelligence and consciousness. I have never claimed that the concept of a deterministic universe is the only possibility. 2. My opponent has called me impatient, rude and labeled my argument a straw man. I do not appreciate that. I have not used any personal attacks, and I'd prefer that he does not either. I'm simply trying to stick to the topic, which is the age of the earth. My opponent has stated that his position is only a possibility, but then claims that he has proved it inductively. 3. I am not confusing free will with self awareness. You cannot have one without the other. My opponent is suggesting free will is not part of our intelligence and it is a separate supernatural trait. My opponent needs to provide evidence that shows animals do not have free will. Most of their actions are based on instinctual survival, however they do make decisions. Proof of this is my cat, as I mentioned last round. When I call my cat, sometimes she comes and sometimes she does not. This is her decision. If she were only acting on instincts she would come every single time unless she was preoccupied. This is evidence of an animal utilizing free will. This can be shown in cats, dogs, pigs, chimps, dolphins and other smart mammals. 4. My opponent is making accusations and attacks instead of following the topic. Responding negatively to his arguments is not disrespectful, it is my job as his opponent in this debate. I am not going to ignore the several flaws in his argument because it is not complete. He has not yet provided solid evidence for a supernatural creator or a young earth and I have to call him out on it. His entire argument thus far is based on free will being a supernatural phenomena, which is inconclusive. A. Human beings are bound by the laws of physics, free will or not. If a man falls off a cliff he cannot exert his free will to save himself from gravity. He can attempt to use his brain to help him survive or utilize technology, but he is still bound by the law of gravity. If a human being is set into motion, in space, he or she will continue to move in that direction until acted on by another force, regardless of the person's will. Both of those examples are indisputable. Human beings can make intelligent decisions, but they are still bound by the physical laws of the universe. Our most basic components are atoms, which consist of particles, just like everything else in the universe. There is no evidence at all that suggests we are special or different. B. My opponent is claiming that free will suddenly developed and that it is a trait of human beings only. He is also oversimplifying the evolutionary process as "a bag of chemicals" suddenly getting free will. This is a hasty generalization and is not indicative of evolution at all. I would like to request evidence to support this claim. Fossils have shown that our ancient ancestors used primitive tools. Homo erectus also had similar intelligence and used both fire and tools. Is this not exerting free will? If not I ask my opponent how he defines free will and how he can prove it even exists. Without this evidence his entire argument falls apart. I have provided several examples to show the flaws in my opponent's reasoning and understanding of free will. His claim that human beings are the only species with free will is questionable. His assertion that free will is supernatural also has no evidence to support it. I challenge my opponent to back both of those statements up with actual evidence. I will now offer a response to my opponents rebuttal on my scientific claims. 1. The speed of light can slow down but it can not speed up. C has been shown to either be constant or the TOP speed of the light in a vacuum. This depends upon whether the photons have a mass greater than zero, which is not conclusive. What my opponent is saying, still does not change the fact that light from many other stars and galaxies takes millions to billions of years to reach earth. Unless he can provide evidence that shows that light can travel to earth faster, my argument still stands. http://math.ucr.edu... 2. My opponent is incorrectly assuming that there have only been hundreds of thousands of species to ever exist on earth, when over 1.4 million have been identified living on earth today. Most scientists claim that the total number of species to ever have existed is between 5 and 50 billion, but there is no way to know for sure because fossilization is so rare. This easily puts the number of species in the high millions. My original point that the earth would have been overcrowded still holds true and is hard evidence to indicate an old earth. http://www.newscientist.com... 3. My opponent is making the assumption that the radioactive decay rate might have been different in the past. What ifs are not scientific evidence. As far as we can tell, this decay rate has been consistent. What if aliens visited earth 200,000 years ago to manipulate genetics of early hominids to create homo sapiens? It's possible, but without evidence I have no right to use that in a scientific debate. 4. The age of various fossil layers is determined by the rocks within them using radiometric dating. This is not bad science and is not tautological. The fact that various layers that have been dated to the same time period and contain the same species, further verifies that the dating methods are accurate. If they were not, many layers would have been shown to be from the same time periods and have different types of species within. This has never happened. 5. Again, my opponent is using "what ifs" rather than scientific evidence. I would like to request that my opponent provides evidence to show that ice bands can build up quickly from a disaster. If he cannot, then it is not a viable alternative. The creation of these bands is observable and repeatable today and demonstrates that the earth is indeed old. My five facts still hold true, and no scientific evidence has been posted to show otherwise. Every counter my opponent has made is not provable at all and based on "what ifs". The burden of proof is still on my opponent to prove that free will is a supernatural occurrence and is indicative of a creator. It is also still on my opponent to prove that the earth is young. He has not been able to do that thus far without making multiple assumptions. There is no written historical record prior to 10,000 years ago because homo sapiens did not develop a known written language until around 3000 BC. Sure, it could have developed earlier, however we do not have any evidence of it. Even around 1 AD 90% of the population was illiterate. Lack of a historical record, does not prove anything. We have learned about most ancient cultures with archaeological finds, rather than historical records