Biblical Creation or Creationism is false

Sources I will provide at the bottom but it is safe to say none of the mountains, canyons or continents took less that 6000 years to form and I challenge my opponent to find a published. peer reviewed scientific paper that says otherwise. When you want to find out why the earth is young, tell me, do you go to a person who believes the earth is old and ask “why is the earth young?”. No, you go to a person who believes the earth is young. Secular scientist presume that the earth is old, so I don’t go to them, but creationist. The people that peer review those secular science journals presume the earth to be old, which is why they let pass old earth research, if they did not presume the earth to be old, then it would not pass.So I reject your challenge as i don't have faith like you do in your science. I dare say no such thing exists but if you really want to challenge the time scale you will have to find these not just something off "answers in genesis" or some rant about how carbon didn't date the snail or mt Everest right. If you reject the authorities of creationism why should I accept any of your authorities of what you call “scientist”. You’re basically saying “you can’t use creationist research, but you can use research that agree with my position” No I refuse to. This is like me telling you that you can’t use peer reviewed science journals and only use creationist research. because it contradicts just about everything we know of geology Not necessary “know”, more like imagined. No one observed the earth forming over billions of years, therefore we imagine that it happened that way. Also, it mainly contradicts popular uniformitarianism. So not necessary everything. But contradictions are allowed in science, take a look at absolute time and space, relativity and classical mechanics contradict each other here. Are they not both science? Yes they are. http://en.wikipedia.org... Also we have dating methods (which I will provide) that can reliably tell us how old certain things are. “Reliably”? Like what? Rock dating? It’s a fallible science. http://www.icr.org... that in every living species' past there would have been a bottle neck where only 2 I’m not a geneticist. I don’t understand the field well enough to speak of it from a creationist point of view. So I can’t respond to it, not without looking like an idiot. Science is very huge, and not all scientist are rigorously educated in all fields. Geneticist are not geologist, geologist are not astronomers. Though if you do this topic again in the future, you should probably request someone who is familiar with some specific field of science. That way you don’t have a problem with writing up an argument that your opponent is not familiar with. You will have to find an actual scientific paper or source that shows a current dating method is unreliable when used in its intended frame. Well I hope there is nothing “current”. There’s trivial ones like uranium-helium, but I don’t think scientist use it any longer because over time it became unreliable through testing. ---------------- Your overall argument is that Science proves Creationism false. That’s not necessary true, as it assumes that science itself is true. The problem is that science is not always right. Obviously alchemy use to be science, but nobody uses it now. Science can be contradictive today as I pointed out in absolute time and space. Scientist do make mistakes, they’re human. Your resolution “Biblical Creation or Creationism is false” assumes that science is correct in how old the earth is, which is something I don’t think you can prove. Can you show say a dating method that you can prove that does not use science? No. There are dating methods in history, but the problem is that most of science old claims predate written history.