Pro Evolution vs young Earth Creationism.

Outline R2I. IntroII. Glaciers and coalIII. Half-lifeIV. Light speedV. Zicron crystalsVI. God used evolutionVII. AbiogenesisVIII. Mt HelenIX. Fossils consistenciesX. ConclusionXI. SourcesI. IntroI have made my argument so I will rebut my opponent's argument. I didn't expect my opponent to make a serious debate. I was surprised at the depth of my opponent's argument. Nevertheless, I think with hard work and determination I can defeat my opponent's argument II. Glaciers and coalFirst off, the reason the dating method is not mentioned is most people don't care which method is used and don't have the level of skepticism of a Young Earth Creationists. There are plenty of dating methods besides carbon 14. [5] Radiocarbon, K-Ar dating, and Uranium-Lead are a few examples of dating techniques. III. Half-lifeBy the same article, you can see that an isotope can go through multiple half lives. This proves your claim of only two maximum half lives completely false. To reach a million years, carbon 14 would go through 174.5 half lives, that's 1/2^175. The number is very small, but would still be greater than zero. Furthermore, you don't mention which diamonds have carbon 14 in them. If a few diamonds have carbon 14 and most don't then this is most likely contamination. Thus, the carbon 14 came from another source.IV. Light speedHonestly, I didn't understand what you were stating here. Either the subject matter was too advanced for me, or you phrased it so confusingly that I couldn't make sense of it. The best scientific explanation for the hot spots is a parallel universe. [6]After the hot spots, you lost me, I really did try to interpret what you were saying, yet I couldn't make sense of it. Light speed is well accepted within the scientific community.V. Zicron crystals"Misidentification of Fenton Hill Gneisses and the Serious Consequences for Dr. HumphreysMore Bad Science: Humphreys et al. Violate the Rules on Naming RocksQuestionable Sample Processing" [7]This article is advanced, yet the validity of the zicron crystal's processing has been questioned. The RATE group seems unreliable and non-credible. VI. God used evolutionMy opponent focuses on beauty and the perfection of God's creation. Yet, many species are becoming extinct. Children starve to death every day and others get cancer. "Thus, current extinction rates are 1,000 times higher than natural background rates of extinction and future rates are likely to be 10,000 times higher." [8]VII. AbiogenesisThere are many scientific theories on which form of Abiogenesis is correct. All of them reinforce the idea of Abiogenesis. [9]VIII. Mt Helen"This web page contains many of the misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and factual distortions that creationists have concocted surrounding the eruption at Mt. St. Helens. The most striking aspect of these web pages is the total lack of any citations or references for the claims being made."[10]Seems to be there is too much misinformation for the Mt. St. Helens claim to be taken seriously.IX. Fossils consistenciesThere was billions of years and billions of organisms for fossils to be created. Yes, individually its improbable for an organism to become covered shortly after dying. Yet, considering the time frame and the amount of animals, it seems probable to have plenty of intact fossils. X. Conclusion I think my opponent mentioned that these events happened before humans were born. We can't physically observe microorganisms with the naked eye, yet we know they exist. Same with many small reactions at the atomic level. Yet, there is evidence the reaction happened. The same is true with fossils and dating, nobody saw the events, but we have copious evidence to prove the events probably happened. I probably missed a few points. My opponent's argument were difficult to understand at some points. I think I performed a mediocre job of destroying my opponent's arguments. Thanks for debating. XI. Sources5. http://www.nature.com...6. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...7. http://www.talkorigins.org...8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...9. http://futurism.com...10. http://www.talkorigins.org...