Biblical Creationism is Incorrect

Unfortunately, two factors have combined to produce quite an ugly result. 1. I destroyed the OS on my laptop. 2. I am going on vacation tomorrow. I began my rebuttals, but was unable to complete them, and will be unable to defend my position. It is up to my opponent whether this contest can be voted on based on the arguments and rebuttals, or whether he simply wants to claim victory, (which he is perfectly entitled to do so). Therefore, I give my opponent the right to claim a default win if he so desires, and I allow all voters to vote accordingly with no objection. Here is my partial rebuttal. Thank you for an excellent debate; once I get a new computer, (months down the road) we should do this again. Rebuttal to 2P1A "Biblical Creationism...has no basis in science and fact...there is no reason to believe it..." His statement is very provocative, and indeed would make sense, if indeed there was no basis in science and fact. "Biblical Creationism is unfalsifiable..." Bare assertion, no reference. "...an aspect of creationism is scientifically impossible, incredibly improbable, or contradictory..." Once again, bare assertion. Please present these impossibilities and improbabilities with references. Otherwise, I have nothing to argue against, because you have not made me aware of these difficulties. "This cannot be disproven, because God will always make creationism appear possible..." Is my opponent admitting there is a God and arguing with him...? Regardless, if any person who called themselves a creationist used that as an excuse, I would tell them to become an evolutionist. If one has no basis for belief other than, "magic" they really have no "belief", but blind faith. "...There is no way you can prove me wrong " and no way that I can prove myself correct." Yes indeed. However, one can look at the evidence and draw a conclusion as to whether the elephant is there or not. If one saw lamps or tables being knocked over and they felt a pressure upon them, (Unless they were going crazy or having a heart attack) One could logically conclude that there must be an invisible non-material elephant, who may have chosen to reveal himself. By the same token, if one sees complex multi-cellular structures with and ability to discern complex moral and social patterns, one might think that there is some greater being or creator, as opposed to simple chance. "...Biblical Creationism is...unfalsifiable..." I would ask for examples to defend. Rebuttal to 2P1B: The tree's age was estimated using cross-dating. Cross-dating is basically an estimate based on other tree's known rings, and other sections of the tree itself.[1] Therefore, there is the possibility that it could be younger. However, this is not what my argument rests on. During the flood, it is very possible that young trees living on mountains could have lived. Or, seeds from trees destroyed in the flood could have been buried, and begin growing just after the flood. There are more possibilities than, "Creationism is false". This contention is rebutted. Your second reference is a news group which does not state how this was dated, and therefore is bare assertion. Your third reference simply asserts that the bush was that old, with no references. Your fourth simply states that a creationist thinks it was younger. Due to shaky references this contention is refuted. In order to determine the true age of the ice cores, scientists must make several assumptions in the middle and deep cores. These assumptions include a uniform ice thickness, as well as the age of the earth, which to them would mean billions of years.[2] This is explained further in the reference article. This contention is rebutted. I almost have to laugh at this one. "About 171 reversals are currently documented." Yet they only occur, "...about every 50,000 to 800,000 years..." There is no reference other than a book that I do not have. I would ask my opponent to give an online reference if he would like me to rebut this fully. However, I assume all logical readers understand my point. No one has even lived to 50,000 years old; besides, that range is ridiculous, really, 750,000 years range? Pretty accurate to them I guess. This is refuted on the grounds of logic. There is no method given for how they determined this stars age, therefore there is nothing for me to refute, for it becomes a one's word versus another's word if they do not give their dating methods. [1] http://tree.ltrr.arizona.edu... [2] https://answersingenesis.org... Yes, I did not answer all of his points; as I stated this is all I could complete before I ruined my system.