Young earth creationism

Greetings, to dear readers and my honorable opponent. My opponent has committed plagiarism of from the page http://www.answersingenesis.org.... He took his entire opening statement, bar changing a few words, from said link. As I have already said in the comments, I will let this clear rules violation slide because it is not part of his actual argument. I will be arguing that Yec is false, and that this earth is billions rather then thousands of years old. And that the universe is much, much, older then that. I will start by providing my evidence for a, approximately, 13.75 billion year old universe. The Universe is expanding. Slowly but surly, the Universe is expanding into possibility space. This will eventually lead to a heat death of the universe, but that is in the future. Right now, we are simply following along the path to possibility space. Flying through space and time according to the laws of physics. Redshift Redshift, it is but one key piece of evidence that the universe is expanding. Based on our view of the universe, gained from the Hubble telescope, we can say that the universe is expanding. One of the way's we can tell this is the shift of light through spectrum's. When an object is moving away we can observe a shift in how we perceive it. And this is what is happening with the stars far far away. This shift allows us to determine speed and direction of this light producing object. Based on the observations made by the Hubble telescope, we can conclusively see that redshift is happening all around us and that the universe is expanding. Cosmic microwave background radiation Cosmic microwave background radiation [2], or Cmbr, is the left over heat from the expansion of the universe. A heat level of "2.72548 " 0.00057 K"[3] permeates the universe, this is evidence that the universe expanded form a singularity causing immense levels of heat. I will take time to expand upon these in my next round, but for now I will use the rest of my space to answer my opponent. I would like to address my opponents claims towards bias in the view of the evidence. So I shall. I shall point out to my opponent that the system of peer review does it's best to cut out said bias, allowing for people of every viewpoint to come to their own conclusion of the evidence and have it seen. And I will point out to my opponent that peer reviewers are a vicious, vindictive, bunch, and that the slightest error in a paper can ruin a persons career. The scientific method was created, in part, to remove the exact bias that my opponent is speaking about. I would like to also point out that my opponents argument is but a house of cards, flimsy that will be knocked over by the slightest gust of wind. Well here is my tornado. The idea that the universe is billions of years of was proved, surprise surprise, before scientists thought the universe was billions of years old. This alone shows that his idea of people looking at this idea under the view point of this idea is false, but lets forget about that for a second. My opponent claims that every person who looked at the idea of the universe and accepted it, the majority having done so, did so purely because they already accepted it. I would like my opponent to explain why it is that only the religious believe that the universe is anything near thousands of years old. Maybe its that bias he is talking about, something that festers and grows in religion; which has no mechanism to remove it. Science is inherently removed from bias, or at least as much as possible. While religion thrives on it. Science is inherently self correcting, and is static in its explanations. While religion is inherently dynamic; it sticks to what it started with allowing for next to no advancement in knowledge because of its own arrogance. My opponent assumes, in his own words an unprovable belief, that the bible is a true history of the universe. I assume nothing. I know nothing until it is proved through the scientific method. I only accept that which is empirically verified and tested using various methods to breed out bias and error. Now I would like to address my opponents argument towards the earths magnetic field. But I shan't, since his argument about lunar recession comes first. Lunar recession. Now, my opponent throws out some interesting numbers. Those of us familiar with the popular youtube atheist 'Thunderf00t' will know that he dealt with a similar, but more factually incorrect, argument. But his video is my favorite source, so I'll throw it in here. [4] Now, first off; my opponents argument assumes that the moon would have been receding from the earth for the earths entire existence, so we already have some issues. The moon, in fact, was created when a body of mass struck the earth near its formation. "How did the moon form? According to the "giant impact" theory, the young Earth had no moon. At some point in Earth's early history, a rogue planet, larger than Mars, struck the Earth in a great, glancing blow. Instantly, most of the rogue body and a sizable chunk of Earth were vaporized. The cloud rose to above 13,700 miles (22,000 kilometers) altitude, where it condensed into innumerable solid particles that orbited the Earth as they aggregated into ever larger moonlets, which eventually combined to form the moon." So now we know that the moon hasn't been receding for the full age of the earth. But there are still more erroneous assumptions made by my opponents argument. It assumes that the earths continents have always been arranged the same way. I assumes that the lunar recession rate has always been the same. It assumes so many things, and this is from the guy who started off talking about how we make so many assumptions to get to our viewpoint. His lunar recession argument completely collapses in on itself with but a little bit of research. Now onto the magnetic arguments! It seems my opponents arguments take next to no research to find huge gaping holes. I, luckily, found a direct refutation of the source of his argument located Here-> [6] Basically, his argument was taken from answers in genesis. It was written by a Dr.Sarfati. And Dr.Sarfati based his argument off of the book "Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field". The problem started when Dr.Sarfati used this book, because Barnes (the author) uses an erroneous model of how the earths magnetic field actually works. Dave E. Matson, B.A in mathematics, had this to say about Barnes magnetic argument: "We can safely relegate Barnes' magnetic field argument to the junk heap of crackpot ideas. Barnes' work lacks the scientific integrity, competence, and judgment one expects from a scientific work." Matson also wrote a paper detailing why Barnes' argument is incorrect. An exert from his paper on Barnes' work has this to say: "Barnes employs an obsolete model of the earth's interior. Today, no one doing serious work on the earth's magnetic field envisions its source as a free electrical current in a spherical conductor (the earth's core) undergoing simple decay. Elsasser's dynamo theory is the only theory today which has survived." [7] And so you can see that all of my opponent's arguments are based on false premises, false mathematics, and false science. And that none of them hold to the slightest scrutiny. Sources are in the comments section.