Young Earth Creationism is Improbable

Con has completely ignored the definition of Young Earth Creationism: “the religious belief that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God period of 6 days, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago.” Con has dropped the “Universe” contention and has only defended a young Earth. Con has not addressed the universe in 2 rounds; it will be unfair for Con to begin their rebuttal in Round 4 where I will be unable to address it. Therefore, Con must completely waive the “Universe” argument because of not addressing it for 2 rounds, else it will be a violation of conduct. Con has not addressed any of my arguments, while the structure says Round 3 is for refutation and defense. Con did not present any refutation in Round 3, and, therefore, forfeits their right to do it in Round 4 because of the two-round forfeiture of refutations. Therefore, Con can only defend their arguments in the next round, else it will be unfair on my part. If Con had begun their refutation in this round, then I would have accepted it. “Since the resolution concerns only the Earth, I will not give evidence of a young universe” – Con has completely misinterpreted the definitions and rules and has not followed them. This, in addition to Con’s forfeiture, earns me the conduct point. Therefore, Con should not address any of my arguments in Round 4 because of failure to address them previously, allowing for my inability to defend any of my arguments. R) Magnetic Field Decay The leading hypothesis for the Earth’s magnetic field is the dynamo model, which Humphrey himself now supports, having disregarded the “Magnetic Field” paper. [1] Humphrey, as stated in the reference, has disregarded his model and has accepted the more widely accepted dynamo model. Humphrey’s model has not been demonstrated, and there exist many further models regarding this. Con has provided only one such model, and has given no reason to think it to be true. My next refutation concerns the “exponential” decay of geomagnetic fields. As seen above, the decay is at hardly an “exponential” rate. [2] Also, Con’s argument rests on the assumption that the magnetic field only decays, and does not strengthen. In fact, via. geomagnetic reversals and other means, most scientists now agree that the magnetic field also strengthens itself, and is in a state of flux. [3] Conclusion Con has not refuted any of my arguments despite having a round to do so. Con forfeited a round and presented his case in the next without refuting my arguments. Con also disregarded the definition of YEC. As mentioned above, it will be unfair of Con to respond to any of my arguments in the last round, and I ask that Con only defend their “Magnetic Field” arguments. There is no reason to believe in the magnetic field model presented by Con, and the field decay is at a much slower rate. Furthermore, the geomagnetic field is also in a state of flux, i.e. it decays and strengthens. I have proven the BBT is likely, and demonstrated via. radiometric dating and meteorites how the Earth is likely to be > 10,000 years old. Con also concedes that, even by their model, the Earth may be 20,000 years old, which refutes Con’s own side. I have fulfilled my full BoP, but Con has not, failing to refute my arguments and not arguing in accordance with the definition. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro. References [1] http://www.talkorigins.org... [2] http://www.phys.ens.fr... [3] http://paleobiology.si.edu...