Young Earth Creationism is negated by much of modern science, not just the theory of evolution.

I will briefly address con's response, then move on to concluding remarks. Generally I feel that con has not adequately offered rebuttals to the points I made in my opening statement, focusing rather on counter-rebuttals to my rebuttals. Furthermore, even these counter-rebuttals fall short of adding anything substantial to con's position.Con points out that his opening argument is not about irreducible complexity. Indeed, upon further review, con seems to be arguing instead that the machine-like properties of various cellular biological mechanisms make them the work of a designer. The use of the flagellum rotor and the video explicitly referring to irreducible complexity threw me off, but the point is taken. However, this argument is noticeably even weaker than irreducible complexity would have been and con can be accused of committing the false analogy fallacy. The metaphor often used to describe complex biological processes, as parts of an elaborate machinery, is extended beyond its purpose. Biological processes appear machine-like in their complexity, but are not machines in actual fact, particularly when the definition one chooses for machine necessitates a human designer. An analogy can be useful to motivate a way of thinking about something, but actual scientific evidence is necessary to safely reach a particular scientific conclusion. Con provides rebuttals to the rebuttal I originally made for the bacterial flagellum, but clearly neither understands the sources I provide (the Nature paper does not present mere speculations [1]) nor some of my arguments (I was not arguing that a type III secretory protein was being transferred to a host cell, I was arguing that this structure is found whole in part of the bacterial flagellum, defeating claims of irreducible complexity).The argument con derives from Darwin's finches still suffer from the fallacy of incomplete evidence despite the argument being updated. By focusing solely on finches, con is wilfully ommiting evidence for speciation that occur over longer periods of time and lead to related, but distinct species which cannot reproduce (or can only produce sterile offspring [2]).Con asks of me that I describe "the speed of the one way direction of light". I freely admit I do not know what this is. What I do know is that my opponent is trying to justify some point using a forum discussion as his source. From the little that I have gathered, the source does not back up his claims. His claims quite clearly violate established physics as he postulates the existence of light travelling faster than the speed of light. Con is welcome to lay out clearly how his claims are borne out of his source so I can understand the supposed "ramifications".A source for the blue stars still has not been given. Con revisits his argument on the Earth's magnetic field. Con seems to imply that the magnetic field is unreliable in estimating the age of the Earth. That is perhaps true, but this was never a position I advanced. I merely offered a counter to the claim that the decay of the magnetic field was evidence for a young Earth by pointing to the same source.I will now conclude.The ToE really is not necessary to negate YEC given all the modern science that testify to the universe's old age. Science gives us evidence for a dawn of the universe, Earth or Man older by orders of magnitude to YEC's 6 000 years estimation. We are constantly reminded of the age of such things as modern science makes increasingly precise measurements. Not to long ago this year, the age of the universe was placed at 13.82 billion years by the Planck satellite from its previous estimation of 13.73 by the WMAP satellite. It is important to note that Planck's prediction fit into WMAP's error margins and that future age estimations can fall anywhere within Planck's smaller margin. [3] At any rate, we are dramatically far from 6000 years. Radiometric dating lets us make all sorts of measurements in geology, from a lower limit to the age of the Earth to the age of strata and the fossil they contain. Radiometric decay is not only determined for one isotope, but many, allowing a cross-check of different dating methods against each other. These cross-checked methods can then be used to date strata and fossils to millions of years in the past. To hold on to a view such as YEC is not only to dispute the ToE, but also the entire modern scientific enterprise. This is true whether proponents of YEC fully realise this or not. I rest my case, YEC is negated by much of modern science, not just the ToE.[1] http://www.nature.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.slate.com...