Young Earth Creationism

1. Free will cannot simply be a direct reflection of our physical minds because we are the only animal that have three components together: Self awareness, the ability to enact will onto the environment, the ability to plan for the future. Every other animal follows the same set of embedded rules. Of the millions upon billions of species that exist or have existed on this Earth, we are the only ones to have all three abilities? Our closest animal relative only demonstrates 2/3 of these traits. Free will is inexplicable by naturalistic thinking. 2. Those were not personal attacks, those were responses to what I felt was offensive behavior. 3. Cats are not self aware, as demonstrated by this video, one out of hundreds, showing that cats do not have the mental capacity to recognize themselves in mirrors: . http://www.youtube.com... A. Again, I did not mean to say that humans defy physics, rather that our ability to enact our will defies nature. Natural selection cannot adequately explain the enormous jump from the nonexistence to the presence of free will and what we can do with free will. B. First of all, the fossils analysis of our "ancient ancestors" is primarily guesswork that bases its conclusions on the assumptions of radiometric dating. Homo Habilis only has 4 specimens and 3 out of the 4 are nothing but skull fragments that might have been indicative of genetic disorder of Homo Sapiens. The final specimen was not very conclusive either. Archaeologists were only excited about the discovery of the tools. Now, for my opponent's other arguments. Mainstream academia has developed a bias against Young Earth research. The "what ifs" are of vital importance. Do not forget, audience, that my opponent has said that modern science HAS PROVEN his position. His confidence would indicate that there shouldn't be any "what ifs". 1. Areas of space separated by vast distances exhibit the same radiant energy. Studies suggest that the only possible reconciliation is a faster speed of light during the formation of the universe that allows for the dissipation of energy. . http://www.weirdwarp.com... Under the creationist model, this would be the great burst of light that God spoke into existence in Genesis. 2. Perhaps I misspoke. I meant to indicate that the current method of taxonomy is highly flawed. What scientists believe to be "millions" may only realistically be "hundreds of thousands", or even less. . http://www.icr.org... . http://www.icr.org... The designation of a "species" has no clear distinction. In fact, the entire spectrum of taxonomy is arbitrary at best. There is some genetic change, but there is no conclusive evidence for the biblical taxonomic group of the "kind". The "kind" is just as arbitrary a designation as phylum, order, family, or genus, and so far, no transitional fossils: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Demonstrate a jump between kinds. 3. This is a backwards accusation. My opponent argues that we cannot dispel things based on assumption. However, the assumption that half life doesn't change is an ASSUMPTION. There is just as much evidence showing that half life doesn't change as there is evidence showing that it does. 4. My point was not that one contradicts with the other, but that radiometric dating and empiric fossil strata dating assume the same things without substantiation. Radiometric dating has no objective basis, whereas fossil strata is less flawed. The strata could simply be the difference between a few hundred years. 5. Again, my opponent demonstrates intellectual hypocrisy. Shady interpretation of evidence is not evidence. . http://www.icr.org... . http://www.icr.org... Scientists arrived at their assumption based on the top few layers, measurements of those gradations, and the overall thickness of the entire layer. However, further research of the Greenland ice cores shows that the layers, due to scientific uncertainty, cannot be analyzed further than about 8500 layers, meaning, 4250 years. This is what happens when assumptions are made from excessive simplicity. *** The teleological end of free will coming from a free will could not have taken place by natural selection. A natural cause of the universe's existence would not explain this teleological end. Therefore, we must assume that whatever "thing" was responsible for existence, also did so with a consciousness and with foresight. It had a goal. If this thing's goal was to create free will from free will, then it could not do so with mere natural means. The Biblical creation account satisfies this necessity. A supernatural guiding force that fashioned the universe and the creation of man is a clearer explanation that encompasses the super-nature of free will and its teleological characteristic. It is clear from everything that we know, that mankind and the presence of intelligence on this planet, is a teleological end. The gap between what we can do/what we have accomplished and what any other object in this universe can do, is enormous. This gap cannot be explained by natural phenomena. Evolution does not create genetic mutations that allow us to bypass evolution, it is unnatural and irrational. We are violating nature at its core. A change in a species of this magnitude cannot simply be the result of a natural mechanism. There must be something inherently different about what we know to be intelligence and free will. Is it any surprise then, that these two traits are so heavily tied to the Judeo-Christian God? No. God has created us in his image in the manner that we are physical beings that exhibit intelligence and free will, just as God is a being that exhibits intelligence and free will. And as a being with power beyond that which we can comprehend, it is illogical to say that God must jump through the hoops that "evolutionary science" has arbitrarily dreamed up. Macroevolutionary principles have contributed absolutely nothing to society outside of expanding its own field with useless information. There is no accomplishment by man that relies on the principles of an old earth. All evidence that the Earth is old, is based on evidence that is inconclusive at best and outright fallacious at worst. There are flaws with all the five "facts" that my opponent brought up. Set aside the notion that I use "what if" arguments. The very evidence that my opponent brings up is based on twice as many "what ifs". My opponent, currently, has no conclusive evidence that proves his claim, nor does he have any that debunks mine. Furthermore, I need not conclusively prove that YEC is the only plausible explanation, as I have said before. I am the contender, and my opponent seeks to show that modern science conclusively proves YEC as false. I support YEC because I find that it is a more succinct and concise explanation for the way the universe came to be, more so than the notion of an Old Earth. My goal is to show that that YEC is *not* convoluted, *not* ridiculous, and *not* nonsensical. I have done my part by evening the playing field between YEC and Old Earth. There are controversies with both, that's a given, but the fact that both of them engage in conjecture and guesswork is enough to invalidate my opponent's position that YEC has been disproven conclusively. I look forward to my opponent's conclusive disproof and inarguable evidence for an Old Earth next round. Thank you.