Young Earth Creationism is negated by much of modern science, not just the theory of evolution.

Thank you Smarken41 for your opening statement. It is almost impossible for YEC proponents not to advance mostly arguments against the theory of evolution (ToE), as con has. As I have said in my opening statement, the debate is often made to appear to be a strict dichotomy between the ToE and YEC. Although there is some creationist literature out there on other subject apart from evolution, these are few and far between.Con presents a quote from Darwin that comes up often in debates. Irreducible complexity is a good concept and it's not surprising to find that, short of giving it a name, it was Darwin himself who first thought of it, not YECs.However, the flagellum rotor has been thouroughly debunked as an example of irreducible complexity. In the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, Prof. Miller points out that 10 of the disctinct 50 parts of the flagellum constitute the type III secretory apparatus, which in another context "allows gram negative bacteria to translocate proteins directly into the cytoplasm of a host cell". [1] This alone completely dismantles the claim that the flagellum is irreducible. For further evidence of the claim's falsehood, a paper points to homologies between proteins in the flagellum and proteins with other uses in bacteria. [2]Con's argument "animals formed whole" is based on a misleading source. It is not clear from con's asserion whether he understands the essence of the argument made by the ICR and perhaps he can clarify. It is clear that there is a misunderstanding of the times involved in the Cambrian explosion. While the Cambrian explosion is quick in geological time, it still refers to "70 or 80 million years" [3] Con's assertion that "fish in the cambrian automatically developed a gut" is misleading.Con quotes the Bible then shows an illustration of Darwin's finches. This does not validate the Biblical claim or invalidate the ToE. Con commits the fallacy of incomplete evidence by presenting only finches.Con moves on from arguments against the ToE to physics arguments supposedly in favor of YEC. Yet, these fail in two respects. The first is that they do little to support YEC. Placing a time limit on phenomena means that they could be worked into the YEC worldview, but it hardly makes them arguments in favor of YEC. The second is that they are wrong as dubiously sourced.Con's argument from astronomy "anisotropic synchrony convention" is based on a source that does not back his assertion at all. The source discusses a subtlety of the theory of relativity which frankly is quite beyond both of us. Con makes assertions that contradict modern physics. The speed of light is an upper limit on the speed at which a masless particle can travel. [4] Light can travel below the speed of light, but not beyond it. The perfectly symmetrical graph certainly does not show that light travels at different speeds depending on its direction relative to an observer. If light could travel to us the moment a star died, we would have died many times over from supernova explosions and the sky would be all white.Con places an upper limit on the age of comets using a source that at no point whatsoever discusses the age of comets. Furthermore, this source and the previous source are both found on discussion boards. Con appears to believe his opponents will not check his sources.Con goes on to make arguments based on sources that don't hold up his arguments. On the Earth's magnetic field decay, con conveniently ignores his source makes statements like "The last time the field lines kinked into a dipole reversal was 780,000 years ago." [5] Con does not seem to grasp that the weakening of the magnetic field is what leads to a dipole reversal and that the magnetic poles on Earth have shifted many times as a consequence.Con gives no source when making the assertion that blue stars do not live billions of years.Finally, con uses another questionable ICR source to back his argument that biomaterials cannot be more than 10,000 years old. The ICR use a source from Nature which in full reads: "Unusually good preservation conditions [...] have produced the oldest record for DNA so far. This was the magnolia leaf between 17 and 20 million years old. [...] This means these compression fossils defy the predictions, from in vitro estimates of the rate of spontaneous hydrolisis, that no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years" [6] What has been called into question is the conclusions from spontaneous hydrolisis and not the age of discoveries where biomaterials are found. The ICR wilfully misrepresent their sources, as con has multiple times.[1] http://www.millerandlevine.com...[2] http://www.nature.com... [see table 1][3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://news.bbc.co.uk...[6] http://www.nature.com...