Young Earth Creationism Is Not Possible

I have really learned a lot from this. I. The Big BangI. A. The Horizon Problem This problem refers to why the universe is homogeneous and isotropic despite distant regions of space failing to be causally connected. However, this has already been solved. It involves a process called inflation, which states that the universe underwent a brief period of rapid accelerated expansion very early in its history. Inflation accounts for the observed homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, as well as the flat geometry of the universe. Furthermore, inflation predicts very small but observable differences in temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which have since been confirmed by satellite-based measurements. [1][2]I. B. The Smoothness Problem This problem asks how the smoothness of the early universe resulted in the large-scale structures of the universe we see today. this problem has also been solved, again using the principle of inflation, which explains that originally the universe was smaller than the extrapolation of the expansion history to early epochs. So before inflation, everything was causally connected, then inflation drove things apart. [3][4]I. C. The Flatness Problem This problem involves Omega, the ratio of the actual density to the critical density, and how that value remains constant (within 1). Again, inflation solves the problem. Inflation's rapid expansion caused space to become flatter, forcing omega toward one, no matter what its initial value. Even if the pre-inflation universe were curved like a sphere (corresponding to Omega > 1) or hyperbolic (Omega < 1), that tremendous burst of expansion forced the scale of any curvature to flatness. [3][4][5]I. D. The Laws of Thermodynamics The Big Bang does not violate the first law of thermodynamics. The creation of a particle-antiparticle pair out of the vacuum violates the law of conservation of energy but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows such violations for a very short time. It's called quantum fluctuation. As for energy, in the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space (which it is), one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. No law was broken here. [6][7][8]Neither does the Big Big violate the second law of thermodynamics. If we consider the universe to be a sphere of radius R that is increasing, the maximum allowable entropy increases as the square of R, while the actual entropy of the universe increases less rapidly, only linearly with R, meaning entropy does not decrease. Also, we need to rememebr that, in the early stages of the universe, space was very ordered, such as in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, while now, it is a lot more disorderly. In short, no violation of the second law of thermodynamics was required to produce the universe. [9][10][11]I. E. Distribution of MatterTo begin with, the simulations that attempt to recreate the Big Bang are extremely reliable, and they agree very well with the predicted distribution of elements throughout the Universe. For example, the measured abundances all agree at least roughly with those predicted from a single value of the baryon-to-photon ratio. While yes, there are large systematic uncertainties in these measurements, nonetheless, the general consistency with abundances predicted by Big Bang nucleosynthesis is strong evidence for the Big Bang, as the theory is the only known explanation for the relative abundances of light elements. [12][13]As for the helium diffusion problem, the studies performed on the Creationist side were extremely unreliable, and at times, deceptive. Helium can leave the atemosphere, destroying the whole theory. Therefore, their "dating" is erroneous (Source 14 explains it better). II. MeteoritesOn the hydroplate interpretation, there are three problems. One, the rock that makes up the earth's crust does not float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or before Adam's time for that matter. Even two miles deep, the Earth is boiling hot (260 to 270 degrees C at 5.656 miles in one borehole), and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached. The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen. [17] And despite enthusiastic endorsements by numerous YECs, the "helium diffusion studies" are based on untrustworthy equations and questionable data. For example, the relatively high Q/Q0 values of some of the zircons, which are important in deriving many of the YEC helium diffusion "dates," may be due to extraneous helium or artifacts of grossly underestimating the Q0 values of uranium- and thorium-rich zircons. For example, when comparing the two volumes, the results are much less than the 1,000 times claimed by Humphreys et al. Vbiotite / Vzircon = 0.0095. [15][16] (Again, source 16 provides a very detailed rebuttal)Finally, the measurement systems are very accurate. Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions. Emery was a comprehensive survey of experimental results and theoretical limits on variation of decay rates. Note that the largest changes reported by Emery are both irrelevant (they do not involve isotopes or modes of decay used for this FAQ), and minuscule (decay rate changed by of order 1%) compared to the change needed to compress the apparent age of the Earth into the young-Earthers' timescale. [18][19]III. The Earth's Indicators III. A. Ice Layering One ice layer forms every year on an ice core. Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. It does take great time for ice cores to accumulate. The minimum age by this standard is 700,000 years. [20][21]III. B. Continental Drift Actually, continental drift is not a rapid process. As I mentioned in Round 2, the continents move on average of 2 cm per year. Considering the wealth of evidence of the supercontinent Pangaea and the location of the continents today, drift must have been occuring for at least 200 million years. There is no evidence for an acceleration. [20][22]III. C. Geomagnetic Reversals My opponent's extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, my opponent's extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity. My opponent's extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field. In short, because magentic reversals take so long (way over 6000 years), and 171 reversals have been observed, the Earth is at least 8.5 million years old. [22][23][24][25]Conclusion First off, I would like to apologize to my opponent if I dropped any of his arguments. He threw so many at me in Round 3 that I couldn't adequately refute them all in the 8000 characters of space I have. Anyway, the central tenent of Young Earth Creationism is that the Universe is ~6000 years old. I proved the Big Bang Theory, which stated that the universe was ~13.8 billion years old, and numerous other proofs that the universe was older than 6000 years. Regardless of the "scientific dilemma", I defeated Young Earth Creationism's central pillar, thereby making it impossible. Sources . http://tny.cz...