Young Earth Creationism is Possible.

Opponent's Contention 1: You can't trust science! (That's a paraphrase, obviously). My opponent states that (again, I'm paraphrasing), science is always revising, updating, and changing its mind. Therefore, to take science on face value is absurd, because it will almost certainly change its mind again in the future. This is partially true. For example, we once thought the Earth was flat. Now however, we don't *think* that the Earth is flat; we know that the Earth is an oblate spheroid[1] - and no future discovery of science will ever change that fact. It doesn't matter how we interpret science in the future in other areas that are being constantly updated, such as quantum mechanics, because that will not affect the shape of the Earth in any way. My opponent appears to clump science together as a whole, implying that one new discovery in one area will somehow change everything we think we know about science. This is simply not true. Now we must take a look at Young Earth Creationism, specifically, the "young Earth" part. Is the Earth young? No. The Earth is ~4.55 billion years[2]. Will this number change as our understanding of science grows? Yes, of course it will, but will it change to between 5,700 and 10,000 years? No. There is so much evidence for an old Earth, such as geochronology[3]. Opponent's Contention 2: Laws and facts keep changing based on our understanding - so we don't know if it is a true "law" or a true "fact". (Looks like a "you cannot trust science" argument that has been re-phrased). I am struggling to find a difference between my opponent's first and second contentions. One basically said, "you can't trust [our understanding of] science because it keeps changing" and the other basically said "you can't trust our understanding of science [because it keeps changing]". To refute this, I will sum up my opponent's argument as I understand it. If I sum it up wrong, please let me know! "How do you know that we can trust the scientific method? " The answer is simple: it works. (The video at the top answers this question brilliantly - Richard Dawkins on it) When you base things off science, it works. If it doesn't, you didn't base it off science, you think you did. Through science, we have built cars, planes, trains etc. .. Have they changed over the years? Yes. But have the fundamental properties changed? No. This is a very good analogy: A car has changed over the years. A future discovery has changed our understanding of science so we can improve upon the original car. But our change in knowledge hasn't stopped it being a car. Now take the car as rocks, fossils etc. .. , the improvements as accuracy, and science as the science of geology. Same thing. It will not change to stop it being a car. Opponent's Contention 3: "1. Our perceptions of what is real depends on our senses and mind. 2. Our senses have the ability to be false and our mind has the ability of delusions. 3. If both one and two are true then there is no way for us to determine anything is true or false(let alone empirically evident), except for our own existence as for us to be able to think about this there must be something that is doing the thinking. 4. If three is true then the only thing then our understandings of the universe and it's nature could all be a fantasy, and since that possibility exists it is certainly rational that Young Earth Creations is not only possible but an equally valid to any other theory of the creation of the universe as we cannot show anything is absolute beyond our own existence. " This argument can (and I suspect will) go round and round in circles. One of the following is true: 1) This argument was formulated by a true (opposite of false) and non-delusional mind. Or: 2) This argument was formulated by a false and delusional mind. If the former is true, then the argument is refuted, because clearly we can tell when a mind is rational or not. If the latter is true, then we cannot trust the argument, as the person that thought of it was false and deluded, thus, untrustworthy. This will doubtless go back and forth. But one way, it's refuted and the other way, it's not trustworthy. Now onto my arguments. First, my opponent has taken the burden of proof of proving that: "the religous belief the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago" is possible. However, my opponent has not attempted to show how the Abrahamic God is possible, thus he has not fulfilled his burden. My opponent might go into the fallacy of equivocation of "God is possible, because science has not proved the concept to be impossible". This was hinted by my opponent: "There is no way of telling if it is correct or not, the decision to put faith in that claim is up to you. However since Science cannot give us a definite answer, it is unable to provide us with the conclusion that we must disregard the possibility" First, I will say that science makes no comment on the supernatural. So without it being first proved that God can be natural, which my opponent has not done, science's lack of a comment is not an argument. However, my opponent and myself both agreed to the definition of YEC being "carried out" as it were, by the Abrahamic God. The Abrahamic God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipresent. However: If God is willing, but not able, then God is not omnipotent. If God is able, but not willing, then God is malevolent (not omnibenevolent). If God is both able and willing, then whence cometh evil? If God is not able nor willing, Then why call him God? (Not omnipotent). Without this being refuted, this disproves the idea of the Abrahamic God existing. Since it has not yet been refuted, I have shown how my opponent cannot meet his burden of proof. For now, I will leave it at that; I thank my opponent, the voters, the audience; I await your response(s)! Source(s): [1]. http://www.ngs.noaa.gov... [2]. http://www.talkorigins.org... [3]. http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.youtube.com...