Young Earth Creationism

Since my opponent opened by criticizing the fact that I have not offered an argument for young earth yet, so shall I open by criticizing my opponent for not affording me the leniency that I specifically asked for in the previous round. As I said, my position requires more than 8000 characters can afford, I ask my opponent to have patience instead of taking his opponent post to chide me for something I already gave prior warning for. As for his general claim about science, I hope my opponent will not set his standards too low. I took this debate on this claim of my opponent's: "I challenge any young earther to provide evidence that shows that the earth is young or debunks the modern science that proves the contrary. I will provide countless examples that prove the earth millions to billions of years old" In this, my opponent has made two claims: 1. Modern science has proven that the earth is not young. 2. My opponent will provide countless examples that prove the earth's age. However, he has decided to write an addendum saying that Science "does not know everything". I want to let it be known that I am holding my opponent, the instigator, to his promise that at the end of this debate, he will PROVE that the earth is young- not simply offer evidence to suggest the fact, but PROVE. I will either "show that the earth is young", or "debunk modern science". Now, on to the counterargument of my opponent's points. 1. Occam's razor states that all things being equal, we assume the less complicated explanation. In the absence of data about the status of free will, we will go by what we have instead of erroneously doubting everything. We as humans can easily witness our will manifesting in reality. Unless my opponent has any sort of evidence for determinism that trumps sensory evidence, then we must assume that free will is a supernatural occurrence for the reasons that I have stated: Natural explanations cannot account for the development of free will in a physical being. 2. Understood, I commend my opponent's understanding but I disapprove of his lack of patience. We have five rounds and I specifically asked for more time to set my position before being pressured to "get to the point", a request my opponent has rudely ignored. My opponent has implemented a straw man in this response. I am not basing my argument for a creator on ignorance, I, like my opponent, and speaking about a possibility. A possibility made strong by the fact that I have shown free will to be a supernatural occurrence. My opponent has no argument against this. Take my argument in its totality. Having shown that free will is supernatural, I am attempting to argue that from free will, comes free will. If the teleological end of a naturalistic universe is the supernatural result of free will, then a free will must have been its cause. This is not god of the gaps. This is not proof by ignorance. It is a standard inductive proof. 3. My opponent erroneously confuses self awareness with free will. I am not talking about the fact that humans manipulate the universe. Rather, I am talking about the inherent feeling of manifesting our will. A rock will move according to physical laws. Non-human animals are bound by instinct and bodily need. A human being moves of its own accord and chooses where, how, when, and to what extent. This is the difference, a difference that my opponent cannot explain with a naturalistic mindset, and also why he incorrectly assumes that a "we are fine tuned to the universe" mentality is acceptable. Natural selection of human beings cannot explain the development of free will. 4. Like I said, I in no way said that my argument was concluded, nor did I promt my opponent for an immediate response. This lack of respect and these meaningless accusations that I am using a fallacious argument are nothing but the result of my opponent falsely assuming that I have finished. I implore the audience to ignore these unwarranted attacks until the debate is finally over. I am simply setting the stage for an argument on Young Earth Creationism (which requires a creator). The argument has not begun yet. A. Humans impose their will on the universe. They defy the laws of physics because according to the laws of physics, all things proceed as the result of preceding forces. Daily life for a human being shows the contrary, that our will is actually a deciding factor in how the physical world is changed. This is the manner in which it defies what we know to be physical law. B. Intelligence does not explain how a physical bag of chemicals suddenly develops the ability to exert its will into reality. It is analogous to a computer code developing a method by which it can physically move, when it has never been programmed to do so before. And now, rebuttals for my opponent's points. 1. The speed of light- Galaxies are moving away from the earth at speeds faster than the speed of light, due to the expansion of the universe. The light reflected from a galaxy is not an accurate measure because it assumes that the distance between that galaxy and Earth are the same. This is, of course, also assuming that the speed of light in a vacuum is not relative. Special relativity states that the measurements of c were based on local measurements of time and distance. The curvature of space time may actually flaw those measurements. . http://math.ucr.edu... 2. The problem is that these "millions of species" were most likely hundreds of thousands of species at best, it's just that scientists know that categorizing extinct creatures by new taxonomy for benefit of the doubt is easier than assuming that two similar fossils are the same species. In short, scientists inflate the number of actual different species. 3. All forms of radiometric dating is based on the assumption of a constant half life. Keep in mind that humans have been studying atomic chemistry for only a short period of time. I'm not saying that it doesn't work now, but I'm just saying that no one should assume that it is how it always was. 4. This point is based on bad science. Fossil dating , geological dating, and radiometric dating developed as a combined effort. As a result, they share the same assumption and thus, the same flaws. The layers labeled from one site to another by assumptions with radiometric dating and fossil dating. The classification of the fossil is based on what is assumed to be known about the strata. These fields are purely tautological. 5. Glaciers and natural ice formations are assumed to carry the same patterns they do today, thousands of years ago. However, this may not necessarily be the case. Bands in ice formations could be due to climate patterns that fluctuated rapidly during the creation of the earth, or the disasters of the bible. Furthermore, CO2 sinks in near-freezing water and exhibits variable solubility as temperature changes. This makes the CO2 level a poor representative of an old earth. These five "facts" have been shown to be questionable. They do not represent a proof, rather, a possibility. Going along with what I said previous, since free will supercedes natural explanations and we can rightly say that the universe has the teleological end towards free will, we can assume that the creator is actually a being of free will. There is no historical record from anywhere near 10,000 years ago, and all data suggesting an old earth is questionable. We can go with what we can prove. We know mankind existed approximately 10,000 years ago, we don't know anything before that. So why believe my opponent? More in the next round. Thank you.