YEC is unlikely

"Before I start I would like to point out that evolution, carbon dating, and the big bang theory aren't things that have no evidence for them." >Then why not produce some evidence? These things are THEORIES, nothing else. "Also, I would like to point out that since this debate is centered around YEC, it doesn't matter if I think the world is a million or a billion years old. What matters if it was as young as 6000." >No, it matters whether YEC is LIKELY or not. Showing your arguments to be without foundation greatly advances those chances. ARGUMENTS "You agree it developed from water erosion. I have explained to you that if water erosion worked at a rate to form the Grand Canyon in 6000 years or less, there would be canyons all over the place. The Mississippi River would be thousands of times deeper then it is now." >Explaining is not proving. Omission ("there would be canyons") is NOT an argument. I believe the grand canyon was created in a matter of weeks, not years or millenia. "As far as your 'omission argument' goes, you're right that what isn't known isn't evidence. So if there's no known way for the Grand Canyon to form in 6000 years or less, you can't argue that it can with evidence." >Noah's flood is the known way it occurred. "You say our propositions are only hypotheses and NOT facts. That statement in itself is not fact, because you don't know whether or not our propositions are factual or not. Even if we take your attitude and apply it, it all comes down to evidence. Evidence tells us which is more LIKELY, which is what we are debating." >Sure, and I am waiting for some evidence to refute. You saw fit to post some links to Internet sites so I did the same. But we are no further along are we? "You propose a biblical flood. I'm not saying a flood didn't happen. Though my argument had evidence (many canyons and Mississippi River analogy), what evidence is there to support a flood FORMING the Grand Canyon? My question is how would a flood carve a canyon ( also one that deep?) Also, why wouldn't it create a bunch of canyons besides the grand canyon?" >Again, more omission arguments. You have not refuted the one solid argument so far: That the ground at the end of the canyon is 40000feet higher than at it's source Therefore it is impossible for the Colorado river (rivers always run down hill) to have carved that canyon. 2.. Impact Craters. WIKIPEDIA: "Tektites (from Greek tektos, molten) are natural glass rocks up to a few centimeters in size, which MOST scientists argue were formed by the impact of large meteorites on Earth's surface." > "which MOST scientists" So there is dissension even within the scientific community? Even if you were to prove these were impact craters (you haven't) then you still have all your work a head of you: No one has ever observed a meteorite impact (this is what science is, observation) of the size you are talking about so, again, it is only a theory that they would be unsurvivable etc. 3. Vast amount of species. "Mammoths have been confirmed to have existed. There have been completely frozen, perfect mammoth specimens." >Yes, and? They are only a variation (the only observable 'evolution') within a KIND of animal.. the common ancestor of both elephants and mammoths. >I cannot answer questions which ASSUME evolution to be true when there is ZERO evidence that any one KIND of animal has become another. "b) What evidence do you have of this?" >Been in a plane lately? look out of the window:the planet is very sparsely populated. e) Are you saying man was that technologically equipt? Also, I mean compete for resources and survival. >Absolutely. f) So we slayed the thousands of different types of confirmed dinousaurs? Sure, good food source as well. g) What evidence do you have that we were around when these diseases were? >What evidence do YOU have we were not? 4. Supervolcanoes (New contention) >UNSCIENTIFIC.