Young Earth Creationism

Thank you for the response. This is the final round of the debate and in concluding I will demonstrate 2 main points: 1. My opponent's claims about free will cannot possibly be true. 2. The science behind old earth is strong, while young earth creationism is not plausible without making a multitude of assumptions and ignoring scientific facts that verify each other. Free will: "Humans are the only animal on the planet who are self aware, manipulate the environment, and predict future manipulations." First, the mirror test does not prove self awareness, since it is not falsifiable. Second, elephants, chimps, gorillas, bonobos, orangutans, and dolphins have all demonstrated the ability to recognize themselves in mirrors. http://www.livescience.com... http://www.earthtrust.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... I will now list examples of animals that manipulate the environment and plan for the future, many of which can recognize themselves in mirrors. a. Beavers create dams in rivers to protect them from predators. b. Squirrels store nuts in the summer to plan for the winter. Some have shown to create their own 3D maps. Some even mask their scent with rattlesnake to scare away predators. c. Dolphins communicate with each other and work in social groups where they organize and designate who gets food, who raises the calves, and various other activities. Some even use shells as tools, an ability that is passed from mother to child. d. Chimpanzees and orangutans make tools and use them to hunt. They also maintain social ranks and can even be manipulative. They can learn and solve puzzles that involve planning ahead. e. Gorillas can learn. Koko learned over 1000 symbols in sign language and effectively used it to communicate. She also demonstrated planning and problem solving skills, the use of tools, understood over 2000 words in English and even told jokes. The examples above, and many others prove that my opponent's claims about free will cannot be true. Human Beings are not the only self aware, environment manipulating, future planning animal. Case in point. Fossils and fossilization: Fossilization is the process where bones become stone usually through permineralization. Ancient fossils like dinosaurs, are usually completely stone. My opponent claims fossils can only be preserved in environments that would degrade the organism, but this is not true. The best preserved fossils are the ones that have been kept away from erosion and other environmental factors. Social benefit has no correlation with accuracy and comparative studies are based on living creatures. Many factors can be determined about a creature through its fossilized remains. A creature's survival is based on adaptation and reproduction. The better adapted they were, the higher the population. The higher the population, the more likely we are to find a fossil. My assertion that the earth would be too overcrowded to support itself stands strong and the math does not lie. http://www.paleontology.esmartstudent.com... "but they still perform experiments and interpret data that yield valid conclusions" I ask my opponent to provide any evidence to suggest this. He has yet to provide a shred of evidence in favor of the young earth position, yet somehow can claim that the experiments yield valid conclusions. I request my opponent to provide some examples. Transitional Fossils: My opponent lacks an understanding of transitional fossils and is making a hasty generalization about evolution. There are tons of transitional fossils and they indicate a gradual change over time. We haven't found every single one, but there are plenty to support the notion that life evolved slowly, over millions of years. Tiktaalik is a perfect example of a transitional species. http://www.livescience.com... Ice Core dating, stalactites, sedimentary, volcanic layers and rate of formation: My opponent is claiming that lower ice cores and other phenomena could have formed at a faster rate. Ever since scientists began studying ice cores, they have observed the rate of formation. The rate of formation has not increased or decreased so there is no reason to assume the rate has ever changed, especially not that drastically. If it has sped up or slowed down in the past, then why is it not still accelerating or decelerating? Would ice or a stalactite formed really fast over a short period of time, look exactly the same as one formed slowly over thousands of years? This notion is absurd to say the least. In all cases, we can observe these things forming today, and the rate is consistent. Ice cores can also be studied to indicate the volcanic activity of the time period. This can also be verified by studying the layers of volcanic formations. The data matches perfectly and is consistent every time. In ice layers we can watch them form year to year and accumulate a years worth of dust, precipitation, deterioration, etc. For my opponent to be correct, all of these independent factors, measurable in the ice layers, would have to suddenly increase at the same time. It would have to be a HUGE coincidence for this to happen, and it takes a large logical leap. Continental Drift: Scientists who study continental drift have determined that the continental plates move about 1-2 inches per year. Continental drift is directly responsible for many fossil finds. Fossils that wouldn't even be findable if the continents hadn't been drifting for millions of years to uncover them. It's no coincidence that a map looks like the continents fit together perfectly, and it can be measured where they used to be. 10,000 years only accounts for about 1500 feet of drift in the history of the earth. This is proven false by many fossil finds that date back to Pangaea. http://www.enchantedlearning.com... This would have to be yet another thing that suddenly changed its rate of movement during the past. This also ties in with the evolution of race in homo sapiens. In fact, any significant micro evolution is impossible on a 10,000 year earth, but it is observable today. "The grand canyon could have been formed by a large glacier scraping through the earth as a result of the momentum from flood waters receding." Please provide a source. The grand canyon is composed of granite. We can observe the Colorado river and it's erosive effect each year. This is further evidence of old earth. It is impossible for the grand canyon to have been suddenly formed by a glacier or flood. Evolution is validated through fossil evidence, genetic evidence, and speciation. My opponent claims that it cannot be validated socially, therefore it is automatically wrong. This is simply not true. I wasn't saying that a fact is not a fact because it's not scientific. I'm saying that my opponents claims are not facts OR scientific. They are "what ifs" based on a very uninformed interpretation of scientific evidence. In conclusion, I have undisputed proved that my opponent's claim about free will is not true. Not only is it filling in an unknown gap with a supernatural assumption, but several animals have been shown to have the 3 "requirements" that my opponent has set forth about free will. I have also clearly demonstrated that young earth creationism is not a plausible alternative. The formation of sedimentary lake layers, ice core data, evolution, continental drift, volcanic formations and stalactites are all consistent with their data about the earth. In order for a young earth to be plausible, all of these separate factors would have had to change their rate of formation or movement simultaneously, drastically, and coincidentally in the past. My opponent has not shown any evidence to support his theory or debunked modern science. Thank you.