Young Earth Christian Creationism (YEC) is a viable explanation for the origin of our universe.

== Dropped Arguments == You have chosen only to attempt to refute one of my arguments, dropping the two regarding ice core layers and petrification. This is an egregious breach of conduct. == Unreliable/Biased Sources == AnswersInGenesis is cited as the majority of your sources. However, due to the clear agenda of this site, the information provided is bound to be extremely biased. In the future, please use more refutable sources. == Refutations == "Is a gap of 50 million years accurate"? When dealing with any subject in the distant past, there is bound to be a margin of error; however, a margin of error of 50 million years is irrelevant to the debate at hand, since you hold the position that the Earth is 6,000 years old - which would require a margin of error of 4.x billion years. Historical and Observational Science The scientific community does not and has never recognized 'historical' and 'observational' sciences as distinct parts of the scientific process. [1] Global Flood If it was indeed a global flood that scattered the fossils as they are today, you would not see fossil layers organized in chronological order as they are... http://www.prehistoricplanet.com... ...but a jumbled mess of organisms, with ancient invertebrates mixed right in with modern-day mammals, since a flood would not care for which organisms were the oldest and therefore should be put down first. However, we do not see such mixing of fossils: you will never see a modern monkey fossil mixed in with an ancient tetrapod fossil. Different Interpretations While it is true that a scientist would interpret evidence differently from a creationist, that is because creationists must start from their conclusion and work backwards in order to align the evidence with their faith, while scientists adhere to the scientific method. It is indeed true that we cannot know for sure about things we weren't there to witness. The most we can make is a highly educated guess. This does not invalidate any argument or evidence put forth by science. You cannot know for sure that what you are seeing right now isn't an elaborate computer simulation built by extravagant extraterrestrials, but since there is no evidence for such a thing, we adhere to the most highly educated guess (which is that what we are seeing is real). Biblical Reliability There is no evidence for the reliability of the Bible. If you have such evidence, please present it. I could just as easily write a book saying that the sun is actually a giant golden glowing unicorn that shines light throughout all the universe: that doesn't make it true. The Hourglass The analogy being made here is completely unfounded. If the hourglass had sand removed or was tampered with, we would see evidence of such tampering through, as you say, a crack in the glass. That crack would be evidence of tampering. However, with the evidence regarding the origin of the universe, there is no evidence of tampering. Who would even be around to tamper with it? If the evidence we find is verifiable, without evidence of tampering, we can safely assume that it is valid. Evolution Evolution does not suggest that life came from non-life. Evolution is the theory of natural selection - of more adapted organisms rising from less adapted organisms in order to further the species. What you are actually referring to is abiogenesis. In laboratory environments, scientists have been able to simulate the environment of early Earth, and what they found is that, given time, amino acids (which are the monomers of proteins) will naturally form (see the Miller-Urey Experiment [2]). Therefore, your claim that abiogenesis does not hold up with science is demonstrably false; this is not to say that abiogenesis has been definitively proven, but it definitely is not invalid. "There is no observable information in which new information can be added" This is false. On average, every child born has 60 DNA mutations [3] from the parents. Mutations are new information being added. Second Law of Thermodynamics Entropy does not disprove evolution. Entropy is the theory that, over time, the amount of energy in a closed system will decrease. This states nothing about complexity/adaptation of life. Theistic Evolution The argument presented is irrelevant to the topic at hand. It matters not who believes in what, but rather, what is true. References [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://people.chem.duke.edu... [3] http://www.sanger.ac.uk... [4] http://www.bible-history.com...