Young Earth Creationism Is Not Possible

I appreciate Subutai for hosting this debate, he has been a class act. Re-cap My opponent started off by offering physical evidence that YEC is impossible. To take this evidence head on, I presented a case showing that physical evidence may not be all the knowledge required to make conclusions about YEC. I also showed that even if our physical framework is correct and it is all we need, we still do not know if we have all knowledge necessary to make solid conclusions about YEC. Pro never addressed this dilemma and its ignorance shows the truth behind that philosophy. Pro offered us the Big-Bang and I responded by showing three problems with the Big Bang. He then gives us the Inflation explanation. A thorough critical review of inflationary cosmology concluded that "We do not think that there are, as yet, good grounds for admitting any of the models of inflation into the standard core of cosmology".[1] A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field and that its potential energy curve seems to be an contrivance to accommodate almost any data.[2] Pro explains to us that the Big Bang does not break laws of Thermodynamics and the total energy of the universe is zero. The positive energy theorem is a well established theory in physics that says energy can not be negative but there is no conservation of energy in general relativity. I will nevertheless concede this point. I will stress further that the Big Bang can not explain the uneven distribution of matter that forms voids or that its motion violates the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.[4] The Big Bang does not address where everything came from or does it explain order when every explosion observed in recorded history causes disorder. My opponent admits that there are systematic uncertainties and this follows into all theories. Pro says that the hydro plate interpretation has three problems. One, "the rock that makes up the earth's crust does not float." The theory does not assert that the rock floated on this water like a boat, but that the water was in a sealed chamber. Water or even air in a sealed chamber will support a large amount of weight that would other wise sink through it. Second, "Even two miles deep, the Earth is boiling hot." This is assuming current conditions, on the pre flood world. It is likely that the heat was generated and beforehand the water could have been cold. Third, "The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits." There are problems for this argument: 1)The water would be eroding mainly granite not basalt. 2)The force behind the eruption would pulverize what was eroded.[5] Pro attacks my source, Humphreys, on zircons. I quote the results of both theories, "Predictions of yet-future experiments on He diffusion through biotite, using the observed He retention in Jemez zircons in two very different theoretical models. An evolutionist model and a creationist model. Rough extrapolations from those data using He and Ar diffusion observed in other minerals suggest that the He-in-biotite measurements will fall into the creation model. Thus He diffusion measurements in biotite are likely to reject the evolutionist model and confirm the creationist model."[6] Pro defends measurement systems but the the Observer Effect[7] asserts that there is a fundamental limit to the precision with which physical properties can be known. Observing the performance of a system by both the observed and observing properties will lead to inaccurate results because the observer affects the system. III.A. Ice Layering My opponent assumes that ice layering has been constant but this is naive. The creationist model predicts that thin annual layers become much thicker during the glacial portion due to much greater snowfall. This model is based on a constant accumulation throughout the glacial period of around six meters per year, followed by a rapid decline.[8][9]III.B. Continental Drift Pro asserts that contintental drift is not a rapid process but geology science offers rapid contintental drift processes. "From the late Precambrian and early Paleozoic, Laurentia and Baltica moved at minimum drift rates of up to 23 cm/yr. A pronounced burst in latitudinal velocity followed the breakup of the supercontinent Rodinia, which had been assembled for about 400-500 m.y. Laurentia and Baltica were either pushed off of a hot lower-mantle source or pulled toward cold lower-mantle anomalies and that the presence of continental roots enhanced this motion."[10] III.C. Geomagnetic Reversals My opponent says that 171 reversals have been observed. No one has observed them but instead predicted them. Both the nondipole and dipole were measured. When measured the non-dipole does not entirely make up for the loss in magnetic field energy in the dipole. The non-dipole portion is considered, the total magnetic field energy is decreasing with a high-life of 1465 years.[11] My opponent does not know how long reversals take or how many there have been since it is out of our visual observance. Defence of my argument Pro says the aged universe is flawed. He claims that God is being deceptive by creating a aged universe but God declared this in the Bible. We see all creations described in Genesis were fully grown. My opponent is also forgetting the possibility that we are tricking ourselves with our aging methods. This would be nessacary to have a fully functioning universe therefore not deceiving. I posted Thomas Aquinis five proofs, not Peter Abelard's. I will nevertheless address my opponent here. We should remember that these arguments are only strong when collected together, and individually each of them is weak.[12] 1) argument from motion Keep in mind that 'motion' has a much wider meaning than the modern sense: it is a very wide synonym for 'change', it does not only refer to change of position. (2) argument from efficient cause Radioactive decay has no immediate cause, but this is not the same as being uncaused. In particular, causal "hidden variable" models of radioactive decay are possible in theory. (3) argument from necessary being My opponent asserts that the Ontological argument is not sound but that is untrue. His only rebuttal to this argument is by calling it secular. (4) argument from gradations of goodness My opponent does not offer any solid rebuttal here. He asserts that it is impossible to grade the many social norms but many would say we can from the Bible. (5) argument from design. My opponent simply asserts this argument as untenable with no evidence. These five arguments together put forth a strong case for God and with evidence for God we have phenomenal cause. Ancient Human History Here my opponent gives us evidence that confirms my contention for 10,000 years. He then offers two examples from France and Czech Republic but they are under the shadow of aging methods and variable circumstances. However the first record of human civilization is in fact within 10,000 years. C-14 Saturation Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950s. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.[13] Dating Methods/The Fossil Record Carbon-14 dating rests on assumptions. These assumptions are that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been constant and that its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy.[13] Conclusion My opponents case is based on experiment and since any experiment rest on assumptions, we can always find or discover a way out of the resolution and therefore showing YEC as possible. I only need 1 out 1000 to be possible and YEC has that 1. Vote Con. RESOURCES: IN COMMENT SECTION