Biblical Creationism is Incorrect

My Round 3 argument: https://www.dropbox.com... --- Rebuttal Rebuttals: 3C1A1: "[F]alsifiable to be scientific ... is wrong. .... [G]ravity is unfalsifiable, because ... backed-up with ... evidence[.]" 1. Falsifiability is a hallmark of science, because any scientific theory must be testable. 2. Falsifiability doesn't involve the level of support for a theory, but the ability to prove a theory wrong. 3. Gravity is falsifiable. If I drop an object and it doesn't move towards the area of highest mass, gravity has been falsified. Contrast with Biblical Creationism. If I prove that a certain event is impossible (say, the global flood), then my opponent can say "God did it" and it is possible again. This is why my opponent must either accept that (a) only events written in the Bible are accepted as having occurred, NOT unwritten potential acts of God, or (b) Biblical Creationism is unscientific. 3C1A2: "God does not use 'magic'." Sure. What does he use? 3C1A3: "Biblical Creationism [not] "scientifically impossible, incredibly improbable, or contradictory". ... [A]theistic worldview ... in the way of ... Truth." 1. My opponent can assert that Biblical Creationism does not fit that description, but unless my opponent can rebut my points, then Biblical Creationism is as I described it. 2. My opponent asserts I am biased (without proof). However, my opponent does not prove that they are unbiased. As such, this argument applies to my opponent too. 3C1A4: "If ... reject ... Bible ... must adopt ... an absolute truth ... your worldview. ... [Y]ou are ... viewing your worldview as unfalsifiable ... not ... scientific[.]" I don't consider my worldview to be absolute truth, so this doesn't apply. Further, my opponent's belief in the absolute truth of the Bible applies, and is thus "unfalsifiable" and "not ... scientific". 3C1A5: "[T]he Bible has never been falsified ... these ... are ... copout options. .... [T]he Bible is ... extraordinary[.]" 1. If God can do anything, then the Bible hasn't ever been falsified only because it's unfalsifiable. If not, then Biblical Creationism has been falsified quite often, as the rest of my case points out. 2. It doesn't matter how "extraordinary" something is if it's incorrect. --- 3C1B: "You ... assum[e] ... initial amounts of ... elements ... are ... known[,] ... amount of ... daughter ... has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay[,] ... decay rate has remained constant[.] .... Mt. St. Helens erupted ... newly formed rocks ... dated using [K-Ar] dating ... to .5 to 2.8 million years. ... After [Mt.] Ngauruhoe erupted ... .27 to 3.5 million years old." 1. I don't use radiometric dating in any of my proofs of an old universe. I use dendrochronology twice, ice core layers once, geomagnetic reversals once, and the distance between the Earth and a quasar once, none of which rely on radiometric dating. My opponent fails to attack any of these methods. As such, extend ALL of my points about other proofs of an old universe. 2. My opponent attacks uniformitarianism, which is the assumption that natural laws have remained the same, because it's a simpler assumption to make unless there is a reason to believe the opposite. My opponent has not provided a reason why natural laws would have changed (other than volcanism, which I address). As such, uniformitarianism stands. 3. My opponent provides two examples of "incorrect" dating methods due to volcanism. This makes sense, because (a) heat contamination causes crazy dates [1] and (b) dating volcanoes and volcanic eruptions with K-Ar dating suffers from argon contamination from the atmosphere, which must be adjusted for (but here was not) [2]. We can't date volcanoes correctly 100% of the time, at least without compensating for contamination. However, there are many, many thousands of correct radiometric dating where contamination could not have occurred or was corrected for, and these two examples don't significantly challenge that. --- 3C1C1: "Fossils of sea creatures ... above sea level[.] ... [R]ock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas." 1. This is evidence AGAINST a global flood. If a global flood had occured, we would not HAVE mountains or places high above sea level simply because the immense force of multiple billions of km of water would nearly flatten the features of the Earth, both through massive erosion and massive downward pressure. This is not what is observed. 2. Marine fossils in the Grand Canyon are not evidence of a young Earth, because erosion by the Colorado River gradually has reduced the height of the river [3]. Finding marine fossils in an area that was once a marine habitat is unsurprising, especially because higher, older layers have older fossils and lower, younger layers have younger fossils [4]. My opponent must provide a mechanism through which different types of marine creatures would have been placed at different altitudes during a global flood, or this is evidence AGAINST a global flood. 3. Mt. Everest was formed due to the tectonic movement of the Indian Subcontinent against the Asian Continent [5][6]. Hundreds of millions of years ago, Mt. Everest was under water, in a shallow sea [6]. Marine fossils are thus not unexpected on Mt. Everest. However, only very old fossils are found on Mt. Everest, not all kinds of fossils. Unless my opponent can provide a mechanism for this, this is evidence AGAINST a global flood. 3C1C2. "[N]autiloid fossils ... in ... Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon[.]" 1. Limestone is built by the slow deposition of marine creatures [7]. During the Global Flood, it would not have been possible for hundreds of ft of animal corpses to be deposited and to have become limestone [7]. 2. If a Global Flood happened, then 4,530,000,000 km^3 of water would have impacted the Earth. Why would the Grand Canyon meander and have turns, when the massive and sudden flood of water would have destroyed this in favor of a straight path [7]? This is evidence AGAINST a global flood. 3C1C3. "Coconino Sandstone ... transported from ... northern ... United States[.]" The Cocinino Sandstone could not have been formed by a global flood, because (1) it was formed in a desert environment [8], which is rather different from a global flood, (2) it would require a constant waterflow of no more than 5.5 ft per second [8], which a Global Flood would far surpass (4,530,000,000 km^3 * (3.53146667*10^10) ft^3 / 40 days / 24 hours / 60 minutes / 60 seconds / 510,100,000 km^2 = 90745.3241688 ft^3 of water per second over each and every km^2 of the Earth), and (3) it would have a predicted slope of deposition of 10 degrees, or 15 degrees too low for the 25 degrees observed [8]. 3C1C4. "Epic of Gilgamesh, Sumerian Eridu, and ... Atra-Hasis affirm [a global flood.]" 1. Simply because people have flood myths does not mean that it happened, because people can be wrong. Many people around the world also worshiped lightning as a god. Does my opponent believe in Zeus and Thor? 2. If the Earth was inundated in water, then why doesn't archeology see a sudden, worldwide, cataclysmic watery wipeout of every single civilization, rather than just myths? 3C1C5: "[W]ater ... cover the entire earth ... 1.7 miles. ... [T]he water came from above ... and ... below the earth[.]" 1. 1.7 miles is nice, but a depth of 5.4979 miles is required to cover Mt. Everest [9]. 2. Seeing as the TOTAL water of Earth is estimated at 1,386,000,000 km^3 [10], an additional 4,530,000,000 km^3 of rainwater and groundwater would be required on and in the Earth. 3C1C6: "The ark was giant[.] ... [T]he ark would ... survive torrential waves[.]" 1. Compare the Ark and the Titanic: http://zerobs.net... 2. No ship can survive mile-high waves, which I have proven to exist in a global flood. --- 3C1D1: "[F]ear ... God ... not ... afraid of Him[,] ... awe ... [of] God. 1st John 4:18 ... 'being afraid' definition of fear." 1. "Awe" can easily mean "being afraid" of something. People "in awe" of lightning are both afraid of lightning and appreciate its power. 2. From Deuteronomy 6:13-15: "13 You shall fear the Lord your God ... You shall not go after other gods ... lest the anger of the Lord your God be aroused against you and destroy you from the face of the earth" [11]. I'm not sure where the line between "awe" and "fear" gets drawn, but it seems pretty clear that fear is a part of Biblical faith in God. 3C1D2. "[F]ulfilled ... in Acts 2:1-13." Acts 2:1-13 talks about how the Holy Spirit came down and made people talk crazy for awhile [12], NOT about how those people never died. 3C1D3. A contradiction is 'X and not X'. Vengeance ... do[es] not deny love. God ... justified ... man's sin[.]" How can someone love someone if they might smite them at any moment for breaking arbitrary laws? Further, cross-apply this to 3C1D1, in that people are afraid of God's vengeance. --- My opponent did not respond to 2P2B. Extend the fact that not all parts of the Bible should to be taken literally, and that Genesis is one of those parts. --- References: [1] http://www.earthage.org... [2] http://ncse.com... [3] http://www.bobspixels.com... [4] http://www.chem.tufts.edu... [5] http://www.thetech.org... [6] http://climbing.about.com... [7] www.chem.tufts.edu/science/franksteiger/grandcyn.htm [8] http://www.oldearth.org... [9] https://www.google.com... [10] http://hypertextbook.com... [11] http://www.biblegateway.com... [12] http://www.biblegateway.com...