Young Earth Creationism

Let me first state that I do not want to get sidetracked. My opponent's first round challenge: 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. My opponent has given me a choice of two positions to take. I am taking the latter position to debunk the modern proofs. He keeps accusing me of not providing an argument, my arguments are meant to debunk his. End of story. 1. My opponent argues that cats attacking mirrors show lack of intelligence. He then makes an argument on that regard. This argument can be ignored because contrary to what my opponent says, this behavior has nothing to do with intelligence, but specifically with self awareness. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.sciencedaily.com... The mirror test was developed in order to determine which species are self aware, based on how they respond to themselves in a mirror. Cats fail the mirror test and thus, are not self aware and my opponent's claim is negated. Humans are the only animal on the planet who are self aware, manipulate the environment, and predict future manipulations. This point is 100% inarguable scientific fact. Furthermore, my opponent is proposing that we assume that free will does not exist, when we have plenty of sensory information claiming otherwise. It's called "day-to-day life". Thus, my argument stands. 2. My opponent claims that fossils are studied for decades and thus, it is not primarily guesswork. Most of fossil analysis regarding transitional fossils is based on the presumption of evolution. Furthermore, fossils can only be preserved in environments that would severely degrade the organism. All fossils are degraded to some degree, and scientists allegedly base their analyses on things such as small notches and markings. Why does this field allow for so much error? Because it is a field that is self enclosed. There is no societal benefit from the studies regarding fossils and thus, nothing to check their failure. We can disregard this argument against Creationism. 3. My opponent claims that there is a bias against Creationism because it is not science. This is completely fallacious, as he assumes that anything that is not definitively scientific is definitively false. Creationism science may not follow the scientific process, but they still perform experiments and interpret data that yield valid conclusions. Mainstream academia just rejects all experiments outright. My opponent is maliciously trying to define science as truth and creationism as unscientific in order to form a tautological position. Science =/= Absolute truth. 4. My opponent suggests that for every fossilized type of creature, there were "thousands to millions" of them in existence. His entire point rests on this assumption and yet, he has absolutely no evidence for it. 5. My opponent stresses that transitional fossils take a long time to show evolutionary movement. This is a misleading point. The source my opponent provided simply shows that individual organisms exist. So called "transitional fossils" make the assumption that it bridges, without actually showing anything conclusive. 6. I predicted that he would go to "Talk Origins" as a source, so I delivered a preemptive source negating what Talk Origins says about the Vostok Ice Core. However, my opponent did not read my source nor did he read his own. The Core was analyzed using 10 methods. 6 of these methods are comparative methods that rely on the assumption that they guessed the right age of other things that they have dated to be millions of years old (Circular logic). 3 more of these methods are based on the assumption of the validity of isotope testing (Circular logic). The final one is said by my opponent's very own source to be "The most inaccurate method". This piece of evidence can be thrown out. Now, for my opponent's other arguments. 1. Racial diversity amongst homo sapiens. My opponent is arguing that Creationism does not allow enough time for Evolution. It doesn't have to, because it is an alternate explanation. The two need not coexist. 2. Sedimentary layers in lakes date back at least 20,000 years. My opponent does not include the mechanism of study. If this is similar to geologic strata, then I have already addressed this point. If this is about striations in the layers, then it involves more guesswork on the scientists' part. 3. The formation of stalactites, limestone, volcanic islands, grand canon, coral and tree rings, etc. Most if not all of these methods are flawed based on rate assumptions. The formation of stalactites as my opponent suggests, is based on the assumed rate. However, there is nothing that suggests this rate is always the same. Rates change based on the conditions of the environment such as temperature, humidity, and air components. For limestone, this is a similar situation, mostly involving carbon dioxide presence. There is no living tree with enough rings to show a million-year old earth. The grand canyon could have been formed by a large glacier scraping through the earth as a result of the momentum from flood waters receding. The scratches along the sides of the grand canyon are indicative of this and contradict the notion of a slow wearing-away by water. As for the others, my opponent has provided no source and no explanation. 4. My opponent accuses me of bearing the burden and twisting his words from Round 2. I don't care about Round 2, I am going by the parameters he set in Round 1. Perhaps my opponent would like to change the frame of this debate every round? Maybe next round, he'll want me to argue Evolution and him to argue Creationism? More rebuttals: 1. My opponent says that he has rebutted my point about free will. He has done no such thing as his argument has been countered. 2. My opponent says that nothing I said has any evidence and that I contradict myself. He then says that my statement about Evolution's validity is fallacious. Everything that I have said remains a rational possibility and is based on what we can observe about the world. Also, I did not use evolution to support my argument, I stated that the evolutionary model (the only naturalistic model that comes close to explaining human attributes) does not offer a plausible explanation. Therefore, we must consider the supernatural. Finally, my opponent is incorrect about my statement. My point that Evolution has no use in society is to explain why it could be open to error. Physics is validated by the construction of a bridge. Evolution is validated by nothing. 3. My opponent complains about my wordplay and lack of evidence. I thank my opponent for his compliment but I indicate that this is not wordplay, it is exactly what my opponent has said in round one, the very first line. See my introductory note at the top of this response. So far, I have called into question every single one of my opponent's modern science "proofs", and none of conclusively prove anything. My burden is met. I have submitted my uncontested argument by free will and have debunked all of my opponent's evidence. While it may not be deemed "scientific", this has nothing to do with whether it is fact, true, or false. Again, my opponent is trying to mislead the audience by saying that a FACT that comes from unscientific sources is 100% FALSE. A fact is a fact no matter where it comes from. I ask my opponent and the audience to overcome their bias and FACE THE FACTS. Thank you to the audience and to my opponent. I look forward to my opponent's conclusion.