Biblical Creationism is Incorrect

My opponent has been unable to post a full response, despite a full 6 days (his + my forfeits) in which to do so, due to technical difficulties. My apologies to my opponent and good luck in fixing my opponent's computer. --- Rebuttal Rebuttals: 3C1A: "His statement is ... provocative[.]" My apologies if it is provocative. If it is provocative, however, I have supported it well enough that it is rightly provocative. 3C1B: "Bare assertion, no reference. .... Please present these impossibilities ... with references. Otherwise, I have nothing to argue against[.]" The lack of reference for 2P1A is due to the fact that proving something to be unfalsifiable does not require scientific evidence (which would use citations), but analytical arguments (which do not). Further, I have provided an argument to argue against; it is stated below. 3C1C: "Is my opponent admitting there is a God and arguing with him...?" Nah. I'm attempting to show how creationist worldviews are unfalsifiable, rather than accepting them as true. 3C1D: "[I]f one has no basis for belief other than, "magic" they really have ... but blind faith." We agree. Hence, why creationism MUST be falsifiable. ONLY events depicted in the Bible can be claimed to have occurred, NOT events that are not DIRECTLY depicted in the Bible. 3C1E: "[O]ne can look at the evidence and draw a conclusion[.] .... [I]f one sees complex multi-cellular structures with ... ability to discern complex moral and social patterns, one might think that there is some greater being or creator, as opposed to simple chance." The problem arises when there is no evidence that can disprove a theory. --- 3C2A: "The tree's age was estimated using cross-dating. Cross-dating is ... an estimate based on other tree's known rings, and other sections of the tree itself. Therefore, there is the possibility that it could be younger. "However, this is not what my argument rests on. During the flood, it is very possible that young trees living on mountains could have lived. Or, seeds from trees destroyed in the flood could have been buried, and begin growing just after the flood. There are more possibilities than, "Creationism is false". This contention is rebutted." 1. While possible, it is quite unlikely to get a false age, due to the fact that cross-dating (also called skeleton dating) allows one to effectively determine whether or not any disproportionate growths are a result of a tree's abnormal growth or of environmental cause, and in turn determine the age of a tree [1][2]. My opponent has not provided a mechanism through which any serious level of overestimation of age could occur. 2. Seeing as the flood "rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits," [3] I do not see how a tree could have survived. 3. Seeing as the tree is 5,063 years old versus the flood's 4,750, it's about 300 years too old for early post-flood germination. 3C2B: "Due to shaky references this contention is refuted." If my opponent wishes to know how this bush was dated, it was dated both using radiocarbon dating to be 11,700 years and via counting bush growth rings, which, like tree rings, grow once a year, also dated to 11,700 years [4][5]. This information is pretty readily available, sorry if I didn't make the methods clear earlier. As such, this contention no longer has "shaky references" and stands. 3C2C: "In order to determine the true age of the ice cores, scientists must make several assumptions in the middle and deep cores. These assumptions include a uniform ice thickness, as well as the age of the earth, which to them would mean billions of years. This is explained further in the reference article. This contention is rebutted." I unfortunately have to attend an event, and am unable to fully rebut this point. However, I would like to point out that misidentification occurs both in under-estimation and overestimation, as my opponent's own source accepts. "We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying the deposit of a large storm or a snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year." Because my opponent has not proven that misidentification is more likely to overestimate than underestimate, we can assume that over and underestimation roughly balance out and the estimate is still relatively accurate. 3C2D: I almost have to laugh at this one. "About 171 reversals are currently documented." Yet they only occur, "...about every 50,000 to 800,000 years..." There is no reference other than a book that I do not have. I would ask my opponent to give an online reference if he would like me to rebut this fully. However, I assume all logical readers understand my point. No one has even lived to 50,000 years old; besides, that range is ridiculous, really, 750,000 years range? Pretty accurate to them I guess. This is refuted on the grounds of logic. 1. The book is readily available at Google Books [6]. 2. The 50,000 and 800,000 years are given using radiometric dating and known seafloor spreading rates. Why does anyone have to have lived that long? 3. The reason the range appears to be so large (and, to my opponent, inaccurate) is that the rate of geomagnetic reversals is actually quite variable, NOT because of imprecise measurements. 3C2E: There is no method given for how they determined this stars age, therefore there is nothing for me to refute, for it becomes a one's word versus another's word if they do not give their dating methods. They didn't determine the quasar's age, they determined the distance of the quasar from the earth (using redshifting and blueshifting of light) and estimated it at 13,000,000,000 light-years. Because light can only travel 1 light-year of distance per year, light from the quasar must have been travelling for 13,000,000,000 years. --- References: [1] http://ltrr.arizona.edu... [2] http://web.utk.edu... [3] http://biblehub.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.lucernevalley.net... [6] https://www.google.com...