Young Earth Creationism

I will provide countless examples that prove the earth millions to billions of years old. " The voting will be determined based on whether or not the audience believes that my opponent has shown that Young Earth has been conclusively disproven by science, and whether or not my arguments call that "proof" into question. The Free Will argument: I would like to point out to the audience that this argument is important in the debate and for them to weigh it heavily in their decision. Remember that the topic is Young Earth Creationism and not Young Earth. My Free Will argument goes to provide a foundation for the plausibility of a creator. My opponent's rebuttal is essentially that there are animals that exhibit all three traits. However, none of the examples he provided are valid. 1. Falsifiability- Animals that treat their reflections as other animals are not self aware, animals that markedly understand that their reflections are themselves, are self aware. Falsifiability is an irrelevant issue. 2. Beavers and squirrels do not recognize themselves in the mirror, and while they show signs of "foresight", it is actually just ingrained behavior. This differs from the behavior of planning future tool use, as humans do, and is the trait responsible for our development of mathematics and engineering. 3. Dolphins and Chimpanzees may use tools, but they use tools that are nearby or are handy. They do not set the tools aside with a specified use or meaning, thus, they do not demonstrate all three abilities. There is a sharp difference between teaching an animal learned behavior and having it exert its will in the present and the future. So far, my opponent has provided no evidence debunking the obvious fact that Free Will of the human being is an occurrence that is unnatural. Our ability to not only *have* desires and concepts as to how we want the world to be, but actually manipulate it into being the way it is, is not something Evolution could do. In fact, there is no natural explanation for it and thus, only the supernatural remains. My opponent's points for Old Earth: 1. Fossils, no matter how they are preserved, tend to only provide the structure of mineralized bone, not of the organism itself. The corpse of the organism would have been traumatized by whatever medium it was fossilized in. My opponent confuses the fossil with the organism. Scientists make too big of a leap between an indirect representation of an organism and the organism itself. 2. The problem with my opponent's assertion is that while a correlation may exist between population and fossil probability, there is absolutely no evidence showing that that correlation is. My opponent's source does not mention any specific numbers. Therefore, 100,000 vs 10,000 members of a species may all be down to guesswork. 3. My opponent again asks me to provide scientific evidence when he has defined science to exclude creationism. The valid conclusions were a result of the articles I posted as sources in previous rounds, and my opponent has not managed to debunk them, only ignore them. 4. My opponent claims that transitional fossils support an Old Earth, this is not the case. So far, our entire discussion has concluded that the mainstream interpretation of so-called "transitional fossils" supports an Old Earth, but this is just the interpretation, not actual evidence. They show different organisms which are arbitrarily arranged in taxonomy into different species, when it is impossible to note whether or not they were separated by ability to reproduce. This is proof that all fossil taxonomy is arbitrary guesswork. 5. My opponent says that the rates have been the same ever since Scientists were studying ice cores. Scientists have been studying ice cores for at most, 100 years. Things could have been drastically different 500 years ago, so this point is moot. 6. My opponent argues that Continental drift rates are another piece of evidence for Old Earth. However, as he himself mentions, there is that possibility that the rates have changed. A toy boat that is pushed will eventually slow down. Throughout the entire debate, my opponent has been unintentionally harboring and encouraging a bias against Creationism because he believes that mainstream science has been proven. However, with all of the data that he presents, none of it has been shown to be conclusive. I have pointed out circular fallacies and unjustified assumptions in each of the experiments my opponent has listed, instances where scientists interpret their findings under assumed conclusions, which is exactly what my opponent criticized Creationism Science for. I have shown how all the unjustified assumptions in small parts of mainstream science regarding Evolution and Old Earth lead to tautological answers. I have also explained that unlike bridge building for physics, the concepts around Old Earth, carbon dating, and Taxonomy have no practical usage by which we can check the theories. This is another major possible source of error. With all of these gaping holes, how can my opponent assert that modern science has "proven" anything at all? If such is the case, then I have fulfilled by burden of showing that modern science at this point, is too flawed and lacking to be able to come to a conclusion on the age of the earth.