The Earth / universe(s) is only several thousand years old, as opposed to being several billion

I find it disrespectful for you to have even begun to respond so close to the deadline. However, I shall treat your comment as if though it were your actual argument. "These calculations,or proof as you claim, are based on what Answers Magazine claims to be "the infallible Word of God." The bible is a compilation of scriptures written by mankind, and as I stated in round 1 are open to interpretation, therefore the burden of proof lies with you regarding "biblical proof." It's an entire debate within itself, but the creationist's interpretation of the bible isn't regarded as being historically accurate by most historians, academics, etc. I'm not saying the bible is wrong, but I am saying that many of its interpretations could be / are, depending on the scripture in question." Straw man fallacy. My point was to show that the theistic timeline was based on calculation and not on interpretation. Going by the dates of the deaths of important historical figures such as King Nebuchadnezzar, and tracing backwards through genealogy through the literal ages of deaths going back to adam, and treating each day of creation as a literal day. The argument I was responding to was you declaring that by the standards of the bible, the date of creation was open to interpretation. Thus, by the standards of the bible, I have shown that you were incorrect in saying so. Now, instead of admitting that I have debunked that aprticular argument of yours, you redirect it with a clever strawman and attack the validity of the bible in general. Well, to clarify on your last point, no. These dates are not subject to biblical and literary interpretation. They are hard dates and literal calculations. "I maintain that one group's interpretation of the bible believes that the great flood of Noah's time caused all of the world's deformities because this is not how I, or many other people at all for that matter, interpret it. There's geological evidence of massive floods occurring in different places in the world at different times, but there is no evidence suggesting that the entire globe was flooded at once." This argument has nothing to do with the point. Please do not digress. The initial point was that catastrophes could easily have caused the rock strata and other forms of evidence that scientists rely on to justify the age of earth. You are now attacking the biblical notion that a global flood occurred. Whether or not the catastrophes were global has nothing to do with whether the scientific evidence is tainted. I repeat, do not attempt to misguide readers. This response did not debunk my initial argument. "I personally believe many biblical interpretations made by creationists cause a rift between religion and science because they can't or wont look at the issue objectively, from all sides. This is one example of how the bible the bible and science don't have to differ. If the entire world to the original author of that story was a much smaller area geographically than the entire planet actually is, then maybe that scripture is accurate to a degree." Regardless, the evidence brought out to show a young earth must be based on objective evidence, regardless of intent. Questioning the intent does little to invalidate their argument, that would simply be an ad hominem attack. "There is overwhelming amount of scientific proof / evidence that the Earth / universe(s) is several billion years old, but as you said, "a general bias towards Creationism stifles attempts to perform further experimentation with these theories", and therefore keeps creationists from accepting that which can be measured and viewed with the naked eye. The Creationist position wrong because its "proof" is based upon their own interpretation of the bible, which is in no way logical or proof at all." This summation disregards everything I have said. While I agree that religious people may have motives for their experimenting with young age creationism, this does not INHERENTLY show that what they bring to the scientific community is flawed. To judge so is an ad hominem attack, logically fallacious. Examine the evidence instead of dismissing it purely because a religious person is responsible for presenting it. To respond to your conclusion, the "overwhelming amount of scientific proof" is founded simply on a few key principles. The key one being radiometric dating. Geologic evidence, the fossil record, archaeological evidence, these make up about 90% of that scientific proof. However, I have offered an argument stating that radiometric dating has key flaws, an argument that you did NOT respond to for reasons I cannot guess at. That having been said, the fact that you state there is an overwhelming amount of scientific proof does nothing for your claim. ************** I have rebutted each and every single one of my opponent's points although he has missed out on addressing a few of mine. As of now, my opponent has contributed no evidence as to why the earth is billions of years old, he has only unsuccessfully responded to my criticism of scientific techniques. However, I admit I made the same mistake, and although my rebuttals were effective, I did not as of yet make an argument for the young age of the earth. I shall do so now. First, I would like to bring up a piece of astronomical evidence. The rate at which supernovas form in our galaxy as established by the scientific community is roughly one per 25 years. However, being recently able to examine this galaxy we inhabit, we are only able to find about 7000 years' worth of supernova remnants, which are easily identifiable. Second, a piece of geological evidence. Rock strata in mountain regions are extremely bent, and the scientific community attributes this to the pressure and geographic movements of millions of years. However, upon closer observation, the strata are formed in a very fluid and homogeneous way. This shows that the bending must have occurred while the strata was still sediment instead of rock, and that it must only be several thousand years old as opposed to several million. If it were the latter case, the strata would be ragged. Third, a piece of chemical evidence. Helium is produced by the nuclear decay reaction between uranium and thorium. While there is a tremendous amount of material in the strata, which scientists have used as evidence for an old earth, it has been discovered that this decay and release of helium into the atmosphere has only occurred within 6000 years, give or take about 2000 years. ************* To conclude, I wish only to emphasize these few truths: First, my opponent has offered no evidence or argument for his point. The only argument he offered was in the conclusion of the response he technically forfeited, However, this is not technically an argument since all he stated was "There is an overwhelming amount of scientific proof". Thus, he has absolutely NOT done his half of the debate, which is to support his claim that the earth/universe is several billion years old. Second, my opponent did argue against many of my criticisms of the scientific evidence and my defense of young earth. I have successfully rebutted to all of his points, meaning he currently does not have a case against the position that the earth/universe is only several thousand years old. Finally, I have not only offered arguments against the common scientific evidence (such as radiometric dating), but my opponent has not addressed that point. I have also included specific pieces of evidence supporting my point. In conclusion, I am the only person to fulfill the necessities of this debate. I know that I am arguing a position that is not very popular, but I hope you will vote in accordance with the strength of arguments instead of on pure popularity. Thank you.