Young Earth Creationism

Rebuttal to: Fossil Evidence My opponent says that the fossil evidence “clearly supports the claim that we originated from different animals, evolving overtime.” This claim has already been debunked by the Ostracod finding. It clearly contradicts the claim that animals evolve over time. However, the fossil evidence fits perfectly under the YEC model. According to Genesis 7:11, “( …) all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.” If Noah's Flood were a real event, we would expect the smaller sea creatures to be buried first by these “fountains of the great deep.” Indeed, we find the smaller fossils in the deeper layers of the earth. I'll quote Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., since he explains it perfectly: “Water plants would generally be buried before coastal and mountain plants. Land creatures would be buried last, especially the mammals and birds that could escape to higher ground. The more intelligent creatures would find a way to escape until the very end, leaving their bodies nearer the surface, where post-Flood erosion would destroy most evidence of their existence. Humans would have been most resilient of all, clinging to debris and rafts, before they died of exposure; their floating bodies would have made easy meals for scavenging fish, so would not have fossilized as readily.”(5) The fossil record is more consistent with these predictions of YEC that those of Modern Evolutionary Theory. Rebuttal to: Similiarities [sic] Between Humans And Related Living Organisms I've already refuted the notion that Humans are related to any other organism, muchless any other living organism. So the assumption behind this title fails to start with. Con claims that “humans share DNA with others as our former selves (Or at least some)(Monkeys).” This argument fails because it relies on a premise that I've already debunked: that humans evolved from other animals. That is, if I understand the intention behind the argument correctly. Taken literally, it would seem that my opponent is making an argument for reincarnation, which is not an aspect of Modern Evolutionary Theory (to my knowledge). Rebuttal to Con's Rebuttal of: Why Have We Not Died 100 Times Over? Con concludes that the paradox I presented “IS a problem for YEC.” I humbly ask that my opponent restate his argument, because I cannot follow the logic that led to his conclusion. He also says, “so what if the people who developed MET posit such a LONG time frame? You have never really explained that.” I beg to differ! I explained that it causes a paradox within Modern Evolutionary Theory, for at the current rate of genetic degradation, humans would have gone extinct in far less than 200,000 years. It's a paradox because, well, we are not extinct! Pedantry I will now address Con's admitted pedantry. He says that a theory is an inanimate noun, and so can't “posit” anything. However, A quick Google search reveals many articles, written by professionals, saying that theories “posit” things. Here is just one example: “Expectancy theory posits that individuals choose among a set of behavioral alternatives on the basis of the motivational force of each alternative.”(6) Con's concern is unfounded. Rebuttal to Con's Rebuttal of: Ostracods Right away, my opponent admits that “Evolutionary Stasis” is a contradiction. But he then tries to justify this contradiction by saying it's “based on observation.” That simply does not suffice. Con then asks me how the Ostracod finding better supports YEC than his position, but I already explained how in the previous round. I will not do so here. All my arguments stand. Back to you, Con. (5) http://creation.com... (6) http://www.uri.edu...