Young Earth creationism.

I will attempt to avoid semantics, but, as half of my opponent's argument is about the definition of a year, some semantics may be unavoidable. For this, I apologise. Now, to the debate! My Opponent's First Half: What is a year, again? My opponent starts off the round by attempting to disprove my definition of a year. Well, I semi-concede it. Allow me to elaborate. I did, indeed, state that one year is "365 days starting from any point". And that is one definition. But that definition will only work if your wanted to keep track of something like a birthday. "Three years ago today," Mr Example said. "I turned 3. " Of course, it won't always be perfect, but neither does that constitute our debate! In other words, to avoid an unbelievable amount of semantics, that doesn't take, say, three minutes and fifty-nine seconds to explain fully, the definition is good enough. Nevertheless, this definition, that I admitted was correct, is not what I was referring to when my opponent asked about the standard definition of a year. I shall elaborate below:There are two main definitions of a year, an "actual" year and a calendar year. A calendar year is mostly what my opponent is talking about in his last argument: "[A]lthough all of the units [years, days, hours] are close enough in alignment with the celestial bodies they are no longer governed by them. " This is true enough, but only when referring to a calendar year. I, however, am not talking about a calendar year to determine the age of the Earth. An "actual" year is my definition from the very first round! That is: "[. .. ]the time taken by the earth to make one revolution around the sun. "[1] My opponent's attempt to debunk this is deceptive; he asserts that an actual year is incorrect, then disproves the calendar year from having the same definition. This argument would only work, iff (NOTE: "iff" is used to signify: "if and only if") I defined an actual year and a calendar year of having the same definition. I did not. Therefore, my opponent's first half of his argument is incorrect. My Opponent's Second Half: Black Holes and RelativitySo, here, my opponent tries to explain that, due to the enormous space-time bending effects that black holes exert upon reality, the Earth can be many different ages at once. In one place, it might be a few billion years old, whereas, in another, it might only be a few minutes old. Even if that was true, the Earth would be every age at once, therefore allowing both Pro and Con to fulfill our burdens. This would, in turn, make the arguments points an automatic tie. But, that would be boring! Therefore, I shall refute it, anyway. What my opponent is actually talking about is the speed of light and how long light takes to reach point b, from point a. OK, so the speed of light is ~3 x 10^8 m/s. [2] One light year is 9.4605284 × 10^15 m. So, let us assume that, there are two points, x and y, that are one light year apart. Let's say that, one year ago - exactly - I stood at point x and reflected light (thus, in this hypothetical scenario, an image of myself) towards point y. Now, one year later, I am 14 (meaning that I was 13 at the time of the reflection), and that light that I sent shooting off has now reached point y. At point y, people's eyes would detect my image and see me as I was one year ago, at 13. However, that does not mean that I am both simultaneously 13 and 14. In other words, an image of me isn't a copy of me with a different age; it is merely the light reflected one year ago. Does this mean that I am both simultaneously 13 and 14? (I repeat) Of course not! All it means is that the light has taken one year to reach point y, giving an image to the past. Similarly, the actual age of the Earth is ~4.5 billion years[2], which has been calculated using various methods[4]. I concede that, at some place in the Universe, the Earth may appear to be a different age, but it's not at the origin! The apparent difference in age merely comes from the fact that light can only go so fast. Sure, it's the fastest thing in the Universe in a vacuum, but that's not an infinite speed. As I said, all the way back in round three: A simple misunderstanding. Now, allow me to thank my opponent for a good debate, the audience and the voters, for watching and (hopefully) voting, fairly and honestly. I hope to see you all very soon! Many thanks,JSource(s):[1]. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...