Young Earth Creationism is Possible.

Allow me to respond. Opponent's Contention 1: You can't trust science. "It is not only impossible but irrational to assume that our paradigm no matter how much evidence nor how reasonable it appears today will be consistent today. " Why? My opponent implies that huge breakthroughs in science have affected the whole of science. This simply isn't true. For example, the increased understanding of astronomy allowed us change our understanding of geography, true. But it didn't change our understanding of biology or quantum mechanics. The theory of evolution, arguably one of best theories ever in science, didn't change our understanding of physics. No breakthrough in one scientific field will affect all the others. Why? To put it in my opponent's layout: Not one breakthrough in science has ever affected the whole of science. Therefore, it would be irrational to assume that this will happen in the future. "We however can affirm from history the paradigm shifts in virtually all fields of science. " Yes, our understanding grows. But it solidifies our previous understandings; rather than chuck it out the window. So, I can infer that: Our shifts in understandings of a scientific field have not completely removed the foundations of that field, historically. Therefore, it would be irrational to assume that it will do so in the future. If that field was geology, for example, then while our understanding will grow, it will not "throw out" what we know already. "You yourself that Science will change and the date in which our earth came into existence will continue to change in the future. However you are ruling it an impossibility that it will fall between the dates of 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. " Yes. Because it has always become more accurate and precise. Imagine zooming in on a number. We will continue to zoom in, but it won't zoom out towards the low thousands. "what evidence can you provide that in the future it will not be discredited and abandoned? " In a sense, the same you are providing. Historical remembrance and predictions based off it. A basis of science has never been lost. Like layers. These layers are being built and improved in very minor ways. But the foundations have never changed. Opponent's Contention 2: "It was a criticism of Science and it's inability to satisfy our want to understand the universe. .. " I think my opponent is confusing science with our understanding of science. Science explains everything natural. Anything metaphysical/supernatural, science can't and won't make any comment on, because it goes against science. Science explains the natural. However, it should be pointed out that I have found no evidence of anything supernatural. This might become technical: P1: Natural and supernatural contradict each other. P2: Existence is a property of naturality (is that a word? ). C: The supernatural cannot exist. (("Richard Dawkins, the same fellow who goes to religious schools and calls relic's studies child abuse. .. " He does? This is off topic, I understand, but could you provide a link or a source? I know he calls "telling children they will burn in the fires of Hell" and "a child's proper education is blocked by religion" child abuse. Never heard of him doing that, though. Oh well, getting back. )) "are you saying that the field of geology is not subject to paradigm shifts and only differs on the matters of accuracy? " I'm glad for the chance! I'm saying that geology, as with most (but not all) scientific fields, are not subject to shifts in our understanding big enough to completely re-work the foundations of it. Geography was once, but not geology. Opponent's Contention 3: Descartes' Doubt "We cannot know whether or not the mind that created the argument is delusional or not. " That's true. But the two options of "was the mind delusional? " or "was the mind rational? " aren't ruled out. Just because we don't know something doesn't mean that the answers are excluded. Those are the only two options. Whether or not we can find an answer to these options is another matter. I believe this will go round in circles. ((It might be mutually beneficial to exclude this contention? It's your call, though. )) Since there is no third option, just an unknown as to how we can tell which of the two options are true; we will continue to go round in circles. Note 1: The burden of proof. It is standard for the burden of proof to rest on the one making the positive assertion. I would assume that my burden would be to refute your contentions, as to stop you from meeting your burden. If you want it to be shared, though, I don't mind. Contention 1: The Problem of Evil. My opponent's/WLC's refute I will sum up as follows: "We cannot understand God's actions or will, as we are mortal and thus have a limited perception of things. " If that is true, then one cannot understand God at all. So: P1: We cannot understand God. P2: One cannot make logical arguments about things one does not understand. C: One cannot make any logical argument argument for God. Which means that my opponent cannot meet his burden. This is another argument that could just go round in circles; I hope we will find a resolution, though. "Regardless of how we interpret Free Will and how God interacts with evil, it does not refute the possibility of the Abrahamic God existing and having the ability to perform the necessary role in Young Earth Creationism. " That's true, although if the refute is true, then you cannot meet your burden, nonetheless. Contention 2: Proof that my opponent cannot provide any proof for his assertion! This sounds silly, but I will introduce this contention anyway, and see how it goes down. P1. Humans will never have the cognitive capacity to directly understand anything with infinite powers or qualities. P2. Humans will never have intellectual reasons to indirectly demonstrate the existence of anything with infinite powers or qualities. P3. There are only two kinds of proofs for God: direct understanding or indirect demonstration. C: Humans will never have any proofs for God. (Including my opponent). Premise one is easy enough, because a finite amount of x cannot hold an infinite amount of y. Premise two follows from premise one. Premise three is true. There is no other way of a proof for God. Unless the three premises are proved to be false, the conclusion follows logically from the three premises. I believe that will be all for now; I will eagerly await my opponent's response(s)!