Young Earth Creationism is Possible.

Now For Rebuttal.1. Faith In Science. "we once thought the Earth was flat. Now however, we don't *think* that the Earth is flat; we know that the Earth is an oblate spheroid[1] - and no future discovery of science will ever change that fact."Our contemporary understanding of the Earth as not flat and infact an Oblate Spheroid.However Chinese Academia, and the 1/4th of humanity that lived there supported the paradigm of a Flat-Earthjust as you and many today hold the view of the world as an Oblate Spheroid. It is not only impossible but irrationalto assume that our paradigm no matter how much evidence nor how reasonable it appears today will be consistent today.We however can affirm from history the paradigm shifts in virtually all fields of science."Will this number change as our understanding of science grows? Yes, of course it will, but will it change to between 5,700 and 10,000 years?"You yourself that Science will change and the date in which our earth came into existence will continue to change in the future. However you are ruling it an impossibility that it will fall between the dates of 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. To prove this you introduce a school of thought which is the creation of our current scientific paradigm. You are correct in that this particular field of science exists, however what evidence can you provide that in the future it will not be discredited and abandoned?2. Epistemological Anarchism.It was a criticism of Science and it's inability to satisfy our want to understand the universe as it is wholly limited to that which can be empirically proven. It can only understand the material universe and has no way of proving or disproving any metaphysical concept. beyond that our scientific method is not fixed and has throughout history changed. Richard Dawkins, the same fellow who goes to religious schools and calls relic's studies child abuse is right in saying contemporary scientific method is wonderful at technological progress. However that is utterly meaningless as to whether or not it can answer metaphysical questions and rule out the possibility of Young Earth Creationism. Also I will give you a chance to clarify, are you saying that the field of geology is not subject to paradigm shifts and only differs on the matters of accuracy?I will reiterate as I do not see as it has been refuted:"This means despite how many scientific laws and facts have been gathered against YEC, YEC is still possible as the "laws and facts" are subjected to the contemporary paradigms of understanding and limits of scientific universe to that which is empirical and therefore material."3. Descartes' DoubtIt would be impossible to tell which mind created it. instead the third position is true: We cannot know whether or not the mind that created the argument is delusional or not. He nor any of us can know what is truly real or not. Certainly we cannot rule out any given belief or theory on the assumption that were non-delusional.My Opponent's ArgumentsThe Burden of Proof is not shared?I agree Science does fail to provide us which any way of knowing if the Abrahamic God is real or not.However your Metaphysical conundrum is fascinating and shall be addressed.If God is willing, but not able,then God is not omnipotent.If God is able, but not willing,then God is malevolent (not omnibenevolent).If God is both able and willing,then whence cometh evil?If God is not able nor willing,Then why call him God? (Not omnipotent).What our citing here is the old theological conundrum of the"Problem Of Evil."The solution to this conundrum is best described in the following summary, credited to William Lane Craig:We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has morally sufficient reasons for the evils that occur. As finite persons, we are limited in time, space, intelligence, and insight. But the transcendent and sovereign God sees the end from the beginning and providentially orders history so that His purposes are ultimately achieved through human free decisions. In order to achieve His ends, God may have to put up with certain evils along the way. Evils which appear pointless to us within our limited framework may be seen to have been justly permitted within God’s wider framework. narily sensitive to the tiniest perturbations. A butteTo borrow an illustration from a developing field of science, Chaos Theory, scientists have discovered that certain macroscopic systems, for example, weather systems or insect populations, are extraordibutterfly fluttering on a branch in West Africa may set in motion forces which would eventually issue in a hurricane over the Atlantic Ocean. Yet it is impossible in principle for anyone observing that butterfly palpitating on a branch to predict such an outcome. The brutal murder of an innocent man or a child’s dying of leukemia could produce a sort of ripple effect through history such that God’s morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later and perhaps in another land. When you think of God’s providence over the whole of history, I think you can see how hopeless it is for limited observers to speculate on the probability that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting a certain evil. We’re just not in a good position to assess such probabilities. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...While Scientific Chaos Theory may or may not be true within that paradigm of thought it is clear to us that we cannot assume that which we to see as evil will not set into motion something that is beneficial and something we do not see as evil will set into motion something very destructive. However you are operating on the assumption that we do not have free will. God may have the power to intervene to stop all acts of evil, He may be a being that always favours what is good, however must it always be him who must act? Are we not given the Free Will of whether or not to create virtue or evil?Was it not Lucifer who rebelled against God's benevolence and Hell is to be the eternal punishment for those who act against God's Omnibenevolence? Regardless of how we interpret Free Will and how God interacts with evil, it does not refute the possibility of the Abrahamic God existing and having the ability to perform the necessary role in Young Earth Creationism.I will now turn it over to Con to introduce some new material, provide rebuttal's to my three contentions and defend that the "Problem Of Evil" makes it for an Abrahamic God to exist.