Young Earth Creationism Is Not Possible

I would like to encourage voters to vote based on the arguments that will be presented in this debate. Remember that my only objective is to show YEC can be possible, not that it is true. RESOLUTION: YEC is not possible! I should start by saying that my opponent will offer you a bunch of scientific evidence that the earth is older than 10,000, in fact he has claimed that YEC is not possible. I will show that it is impossible for my opponent to make such claim. Scientific Dilemma We all have good reasons to believe that most of our present scientific theories are approximate. It is true that science has appeared to have produced valuable practical systems for humans to explain the universe. But, we all know that science is restricted to only knowledge that relates to the material universe and their laws. As so, Epistemological Anarchism[1] puts forth the idea that it is unrealistic and detrimental to science to stand-pat only on universal and fixed rules. That limiting ourselves to just physical laws or material existence is detrimental when looking for all possible knowledge. And even when we think we have gained knowledge then we still have Half-life of knowledge. [2] This says that a certain amount of time has to elapse before half of the knowledge in a particular area is superseded or shown to be untrue. One reason for this is because of the Gettier problem. [3] This is were there are certain circumstances in which one does not have all the knowledge required. This is the problem being discussed here, phenomena and science. A person's belief of what will or did happen can coincidentally be correct without his or her having the actual evidence to base it on. Same so someone who has actual base to believe they are correct, can actually be incorrect. The Pessimistic Induction[4] offers us evidence that the posits of our best current theories do not exist. It says that scientists believe their understanding of the world to be reasonably correct, though previous generations of scientists wrongly believed the same thing. The Agrippa's Trilemma[5] pushes this further. Agrippa's Trilemma is a philosophical term coined to stress the purported impossibility to prove any truth even in the fields of logic and mathematics. Thomas Kuhn wrote a analysis on the history of science called, 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. '[6] Kuhn argued for an model in which periods of continuity in science are interrupted by periods of revolution. During these revolutions in science the discovery of anomalies leads to changes in rules. We then have to question old data and move beyond normal science. It takes creativity and knowledge to ask the right questions or do the right things. For knowledge to grow endlessly, we can not chain ourselves to one particular thought. One of the only things that keeps people from accepting that YEC 'could be' possible is scientific knowledge. But, there can not be a sole resounding method or rule that holds exception when looking for growth in knowledge. We then have a reason to believe science has a Dilemma. Phenomenal We can not rule out just about any possibility[7] and because of that we can not limit our scope. David Chalmers introduced the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness,'[8] arguing that phenomenal experiences are different from the materialistic (natural phenomena. ) Claiming that easy problems regardless how complex or poorly understood, can be explained as natural phenomena. He claimed that phenomenal experiences would still persist even when all material functions have been explained. He claimed that reductive explanation of consciousness is impossible. That if one takes consciousness seriously, one has to go beyond a strict materialist framework. Type-D dualism[9] holds that micro physics is not causally closed, and that phenomenal properties play a causal role in affecting the physical world. On this view, the evolution of micro physical states will not be determined by physical principles alone. Con's Revised Omphalos hypothesis[10] is the argument that God created the world recently complete with full age and that therefore no presumed evidence that we can see can be taken as fully reliable. Thomas's "Five Ways"[11] or five proofs for the existence of God. The arguments are often named as follows: (1) argument from motion (2) argument from efficient cause (3) argument from necessary being (4) argument from gradations of goodness (5) argument from design. Circumstantial Evidence I will now offer a combination of circumstantial evidences for a Young Earth Creation. I should first start this by saying that historians claim Human history only goes back 4,600- 5,400 (or more) years. [12] "Professor Libby learned this when he tried to verify his Carbon-14 method. He said. 'The first shock Dr. Arnold and I had was when our advisers informed us that history extended back only 5,000 years. .. You read statements in books that such and such a society or archaeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly (that) these . .. ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, it is at about the time of the First Dynasty in Egypt that the first historical date of any real certainty has been established. " The earth's atmosphere should be saturated with C14 but it is not. The amount of C14 being produced is greater than the amount that is decaying. [13] It is estimated that a state of equilibrium would be reached in as little as 30,000 years. The age of the earth or life on it cannot be demonstrated through any dating method because the method is not testable over the time it is supposed to date. There are always assumptions made which are not verifiable. [14] Gaps in the fossil record, exist, there is no fossil evidence of transitional forms. Because of the absence of complete evidence to support belief in common ancestry, evolutionists acknowledge that evolution is a philosophical belief, not scientific in essence. [15] Conclusion "My intention is not to replace one set of general rules by another such set: my intention is, rather, to convince the reader that all methodologies, even the most obvious ones, have their limits. The best way to show this is to demonstrate the limits and even the irrationality of some rules which she, or he, is likely to regard as basic. "[16] If we fully put science as the base of all knowledge, that would mean that it rules out any supernatural event. We can not rule such notions because science could even show them to be true. Therefore we can not rule YEC as impossible and concluding the resolution false. Sources [1] . http://www.iva.dk...(Paul%20Feyerabend).htm [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://www.iep.utm.edu... [4] INTERNATIONAL STUDIES IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 2, 2003 [5] . http://www.philosophybasics.com... [6] . http://philosophy.wisc.edu... [7] . http://www.albany.edu... [8] The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory , by David J. Chalmers [9] . http://consc.net... [10] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] . http://web.mnstate.edu... [12] . http://evolutionfacts.com... [13] . http://nephicode.blogspot.com... [14] . http://www.wiebefamily.org.... [15] . http://creationwiki.org... [16] . http://www.galilean-library.org...