Young Earth Creation is a Scientifically probable explanation of the Universe.

I trust that he will have no reason to complain of my conduct or I of his, and that we can enjoy a debate which is challenging and inspiring (if not to change our beliefs, at least to consider them more carefully). I forgot to mention earlier that due to the limitations of this debate I will not try to prove "god" etc. That is a separate debate. The parameters of the debate, as my opponent said are about proving the earth started around 6,000 years ago. First I would like to clarify that the debate topic here is completely different from trying to prove many other scientific arguments. We shall still use the evidence but it cannot be used the same way. Let us say that we wanted to prove that ice when heated up would turn into water. It would be easy to show that by a simple experiment. However historical science is completely different. I am sure my opponent will agree with this point. It is the same whether you are discussing Creation or any other theory. For example you can't prove that George Washington was president through "science" because his life and presidency are non-repeatable. The same is true with the age of the earth and universe. Actually this sort of evidence is fairly similar to solving a mystery. Sherlock Holmes (who doesn't love him? ) finds one boot on a crime scene, he thinks "aha! I know that the mud on this is from two days ago in the such and such area of london, and so I know who the criminal is". Don't we all wish we were as smart as Sherlock Holmes! The same technique is used here. We look at fossils, for example, and we look at what layer they are in. Then we might say "Oh this fossil is in the pre-cambrian layer thus it is X million years old. The question is whether this method is reliable. We all have the same evidence, but we each interpret it differently based on our worldview. Finally I would like to state that this debate is critical to a person's understanding of the world. While I will not be dealing with Evolution, or Christianity in this debate it is vital that the reader and voter understand that they are unavoidably tied to this discussion. While this single argument cannot "prove" one or the other, evolution cannot survive without millions (and in some cases billions) of years (at least until a new theory is proposed). Neither can the biblical history be stretched much above 10,000 years. While many have tried to make Christianity fit in millions of years (Day-Age, Gap Theory, Theistic Evolution, et al. ) these do not work. The bottom line is the Bible says no death before the Fall (Genesis chp. 3). So we must have one or the other–not both. In my argument I shall present several clocks. Now, as my opponent said in the comments about not using an semantic traps, or odd meaning of a word to trick the other side, I shall clarify here, so I hope he will forgive me in the understanding that I am not trying to trick him. "Clock" here does not mean that thing on your dresser that tells you to wake up when you'd much rather sleep in. Instead a "clock" is any geophysical or astronomical process that is changing at a constant rate. Clocks may be used to estimate how long a process has beenï¿½ goingï¿½ on for. ï¿½ All clocks (includingï¿½radiometric ones) require the use ofï¿½ at leastï¿½ three assumptions. These are: 1. The rate of change has remained constant throughout the past. 2. The original conditions are known. 3. The process has not been altered by outside forces. "Clocks" are used by scientists, whatever their worldview, to determine the age of the earth. 1. Blue stars All stars get their energy to burn from the fusion of hydrogen deep in their core. But this will eventually burn up (at which point Blue stars turn into Type II and then become a Black Hole, similarly a star like our sun becomes a Red Giant, then a Planetary Nebula, then a white dwarf [1]). Even secular scientists agree that these stars could only last for a "few million years[1]. Since the universe is (necessarily) at least 13 billion years old, my opponent must explain how these stars have been formed (whatever you want to call it) since the beginning of the universe. [1]. http://www.universetoday.com... . http://digitaljournal.com... 2. The Earth's Magnetic Field is decaying too fast to be more than 20,000 years old. The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (ï¿½ 165) years. [1] [1] . http://www.creationresearch.org... [2]. http://www.nature.com... www. pbs. org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3016_magnetic. html 3. DNA Mutation rates are much too fast. [1]This means that DNA cannot have existed for more that 10,000 years. This is not just in humans but in other creatures such as dinosaurs. [2] [3] [4] [5] [1] www. dnai. org/teacherguide/pdf/reference_romanovs. pdf [2] Cherfas, J. , Ancient DNA: still busy after death, Science 253:1354–1356 (20 September 1991). [3] Cano, R. J. , H. N. Poinar, N. J. Pieniazek, A. Acra, and G. O. Poinar, Jr. Amplification and sequencing of DNA from a 120-135-million-year-old weevil, Nature 363:536–8 (10 June 1993). . http://www.nature.com... [4] Krings, M. , A. Stone, R. W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki, M. Stoneking, and S. Pï¿½ï¿½bo, Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans, Cell 90:19–30 (Jul 11, 1997). 454. com/downloads/news-events/mtDNANeandertalarticle. pdf [5] Lindahl, T, Unlocking nature's ancient secrets, Nature 413:358–359 (27 September 2001). 4. Not enough mud has accumulated on the ocean floor. While over 25 billion tons of sediment is deposited in the ocean each year. [1] Only about 1 billion tons are removed. While Plate Teutonic Subduction does remove about 1 billion tons per year [2] there is only about 400 meters of sediment on the ocean floor including shelves. [2]. This amount would take a maximum of 12 million years (not the 3 billion claimed by most secular scientists) to accumulate. A similar problem can be found in relation to sodium levels in the oceans. While 450 million tons of sodium are added each year [3] only 27% gets back out. [4] [5] Even the most generous calculations, figuring much smaller inputs of sodium and much larger outputs can only arrive at 62 million years (of the alleged 3 billion years). [5] Other calculations come to an age much closer to the 10,000 to 6,000 year range. [6] [1] Gordeyev, V. V. et al, 'The average chemical composition of suspensions in the world's rivers and the supply of sediments to the ocean by streams', Dockl. Akad, Nauk. SSSR 238 (1980), p. 150. [2] Hay, W. W. , et al, 'Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction', Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No. B12 (10 December 1988), pp. 14,933-14,940. . http://www.agu.org... [3] Maybeck, M. , 'Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans', Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979), p. 215. www. sisyphe. upmc. fr/~meybeck/MM/pdf/7C9res. pdf (sorry you will have to translate this document but I wanted to provide the original). [4] Sayles, F. L. and Mangelsdorf, P. C. , 'Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater', Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979), p. 767 www. sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/0016703779902606. [5] Austin, S. A. and Humphreys, D. R. , 'The sea's missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1990) pp. 17-31. Address in ref. 12. . http://tccsa.tc... [6] . http://www.icr.org... I have three more arguments to present but I will reserve them for a future round due to running out of space.