Young Earth Creationism Is Not Possible

In this round, I will refute the main points of my opponent's argument. God Did Not Create the World with Age One of my opponent's claims is that the Universe was made with age, and that "therefore no presumed evidence that we can see can be taken as fully reliable. "However, there are several problems with this theory. One is that, if God created the world with age, that would make him a deceiver, and that is impossible, because that would make God imperfect. Descartes put it this way: "God. .. a being having all those perfections that I cannot comprehend. .. and a being subject to no defects whatever. .. cannot be a deceiver, for it is manifest by the light of nature that all fraud and deception depend on some defect. " In other words, Descartes makes the argument that God is perfect, deception is an imperfection, therefore, God cannot deceive. [1][2]Another problem is the many imperfections throughout the Universe. Why would God create craters all over Mercury and other celestial bodies? Why would God put craters on the Earth, and then make them appear older than they were? There is no basis for this - it's irrational. There's no reason why God would do this. [3][4][5][6]Overall, God creating a world with age makes God a deceiver, which he cannot be. Peter Abelard's Five Proofs for the Existence of God Are FalseIn this section, I will explain the fallacies behind each of the five arguments. The first is the argument from motion, that every moving thing has a mover, that is, at the top, God. However, Newton's First Law states that a particle would tend to stay at rest or move in a constant velocity if no external force is applied to it. Hence it is as natural for a body to move (in a constant velocity) as it is for a body to be at rest. There is no need for a Prime Mover at all. Then came Einstein, who through the Special Theory of Relativity, showed that there is no such thing as absolute motion. All velocities can only be given relative to something else, none of which is an absolute reference, making a prime mover make no sense. Finally, if everything has a cause to it, who created God? [7][8]The second is the argument from efficient cause, that for the series of causes and effects, that we see in the world, to make sense it must have a beginning, God being the first cause. However, physics has shown this to be incorrect. The phenomenon of radioactivity is one such example of an event that has no cause. While it is possible to predict the half-life of radioactive materials, i. e. how long it will take for half the original sample to decay, the exact moment when an individual atom will decay cannot be predicted. The decay of an individual atom is an example of an uncaused event. Furthermore, there is no reason to relate the "first cause" to be God; it could be something else. [7][9][10]The third is the argument from necessary being, that existing thing does not owe its existence to itself. However, if all things are contingent, there could not have been anything as at one time all these could be non-existent. To account for all existence, there must be a Necessary Being, God. The argument, in its basic form is circular, as it assumes the conclusion in one of its premises; the term "necessary being" if it is to be used in a empirical sense boils down to the Second Way, which was already shown to be fallacious, if it is used in the logical sense it reduces to the Ontological Argument, another argument already dismissed as unsound; and finally even if we must admit a necessary existent entity why shouldn't it be the universe itself? [7]The fourth is the argument from gradations of goodness, that there exist gradations in things, for example more noble and less noble, more true or less true. The existence of such gradations implies the existence of an Absolute Being as a datum for all these relative gradation. Most social standards and norms are therefore subjective. It is simply impossible to grade the many social norms in a hierarchical sense. The absence of any clear-cut gradation in this sense refutes the Fourth Way. [7][11]The fifth is the argument from design, that the behavior of things in the world implies a Grand Designer or architect, God. The fundamental premise of the Fifth Way, that inanimate things and processes are acting towards an intelligent end, is untenable. [7][11]Overall, these five arguments do not prove young earth creationism, they are simply proofs of God. Nothing is mentioned of the age of the Universe itself. Either way, the arguments are refuted. Ancient Human History Human history goes way further back than 4000 BC. In 8000 BC, a round stone tower, now preserved to about 8.5 meters high and 8.5 meters in diameter is built in Jericho (can be seen partially today). In 25000 BC, a hamlet consisting of huts built of rocks and of mammoth bones is founded in what is now Dolni Vestonice in Moravia in the Czech Republic. In 30000 BC, A herd of reindeer is slaughtered and butchered by humans in the Vezere Valley in what is today France. Numerous cave paintings throughout the world predate 4000 BC. The statement that human history does not go further back than that is erroneous. [12][13][14][19]C-14 Saturation "Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field. .. Thus, at least within the last 9000 years, the earth's magnetic field has fluctuated and those fluctuations have induced fluctuations in the production of carbon-14 to a noticeable extent. Therefore, as already noted, Dr. Hovind's claim that carbon-14 has been slowly building up towards a 30,000 year equilibrium is worthless. .. Therefore, we may conclude that atmospheric variation in C-14 production is not a serious problem for the carbon-14 method. "[15] (More information may be found in source 15)Dating Methods Here is a comparison of date tested meteorites: Type NumberDated Method Age (billionsof years) Chondrites (CM, CV, H, L, LL, E) 13 Sm-Nd 4.21 +/- 0.76 Carbonaceous chondrites 4 Rb-Sr 4.37 +/- 0.34 Chondrites (undisturbed H, LL, E) 38 Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.02 Chondrites (H, L, LL, E) 50 Rb-Sr 4.43 +/- 0.04 H Chondrites (undisturbed) 17 Rb-Sr 4.52 +/- 0.04 H Chondrites 15 Rb-Sr 4.59 +/- 0.06 L Chondrites (relatively undisturbed) 6 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.12 L Chondrites 5 Rb-Sr 4.38 +/- 0.12 LL Chondrites (undisturbed) 13 Rb-Sr 4.49 +/- 0.02 LL Chondrites 10 Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06 E Chondrites (undisturbed) 8 Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.04 E Chondrites 8 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.13 Eucrites (polymict) 23 Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.19 Eucrites 11 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.30 Eucrites 13 Lu-Hf 4.57 +/- 0.19 Diogenites 5 Rb-Sr 4.45 +/- 0.18 Iron (plus iron from St. Severin) 8 Re-Os 4.57 +/- 0.21 As shown in the table, there is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion years, between several meteorites and by several different dating methods. The above table includes a significant fraction of all meteorites on which isotope dating has been attempted. Less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error. Dating is reliable. [16][17]The Fossil Record "The fact that some transitional fossils are not preserved does not disprove evolution. Evolutionary biologists do not expect that all transitional forms will be found and realize that many species leave no fossils at all. Lots of organisms don't fossilize well and the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are not that common. So, science actually predicts that for many evolutionary changes there will be gaps in the record. "[18] Overall, this does not prove Young Earth Creationism either. Sources . http://tny.cz...