Young earth creationism is probable

I intend to tackle this question of the age if huge Earth from two fronts. Firstly from presuppositionalism and secondly via. scientific enquiry. I wish us both a good debate, and best of luck. II. DefinitionsKnowledge - Justified True Belief . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...III. PresuppositionalismBefore dealing with the evidence at hand, one needs an epistemological basis for which they interpret said evidence, and the conclusions that can be drawn from them are hinged upon the grounding of one's worldview. The epistimological problem of induction, and hence scientific enquiry in secular circles is well known to philosophers. Take the following statement:The only source of truth is scientific. This single statement is obviously self-refuting, there is no way to scientifically demonstrate that statement, and even if there was, then it would become a viciously circular argument. When interpreting evidence we use our reasoning and logic, but by what means can we know if our reasoning and logic are valid? Con cannot say he uses his reasoning to justify his reasoning, because of course this is obviously another viciously circular argument. Pro needs to demonstrate his reasoning and logic are valid, and failure to do so renders all arguments against mine futile. From which I will establish my first contention. IV. Contention 1 - God & Scripture needs to be presupposed in order to justify one's logic and reasoningThe key difference between the scriptural Christian worldview and a secular one, is that God provides innate knowledge of his existence to his people. There are several passages in scripture that attest to this, such as John 5:7, Corinthians 2:9"16 and Matthew 11:25"27. The latter of these reads:"All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. "Since God himself is a properly basic known fact, it follows that one's reasoning and logic and therefore justified, and be claimed to be valid. To formalize:P1. Without presupposing God & Scripture to be true, one cannot justify their reasoning & logic. P2. Not justifying one's reason & logic is epistemological suicide. C. To justifiably use logic & reasoning, we therefore must presuppose God & Scripture. Premise 2 is rather self-evident to anyone. And I have supported Premise 1 above, Con needs to show why the argument is unsound, otherwise we automatically follow onto my second contention. V. Scripture clearly depicts a 6,000 year old Earth. God created the world in six days, and by following the genealogies in the books of Genesis, Exodus and Kings. By taking the age of various scriptural characters when they gave birth to their relevant son from Adam through to Kings, which depicts the Exile of Judah. The events of the exile of Judah we can link to our historical records which completes the genealogy to yield an age if roughly 6150 years. (. http://creation.com...)The validity of this argument depends on the presuppositional argument given. VI. Scientific Evidences - Helium Diffusion StudiesThere have been a number of independent scientific studies into the age of the Earth. One comprehensive study by Humphries and co-workers measured the helium diffusion rates of zircon crystals found by drilling in 'Precambrian' rock layers (allegedly >550 million years old) in New Mexico. Their findings were rather compelling, but let me give a little background first. [1]Zircon crystals are some of the allegedly oldest minerals found today. It's not hard to see why, since zirconium oxide (zircon) is a highly durable material, and yield well to secular dating methods due to uranium a chemical similarity to zirconium, being readily able to substitute for zirconium in the crystal lattice. In helium diffusion dating, the helium that is invariably produced by radioactive decay of uranium and other elements is measured. Given that zircon crystals retain the helium produced by radioactive decay (akin to how MOF crystals effectively retain other gasses) we can obtain an estimate of the material's age. The results of the RATE team's project are summarised in the diagram given in the link below (apologies as I am typing on my phone as I am away from home so I cannot paste pictures). . http://creation.com...By extrapolating the dates obtained to what would be the age of the earliest material on earth, the predictions fall slap bang onto a 6,000 year old Earth hypothesis! VII. Supernova'sOne prediction of secular scientists are that the galaxy should be a firework show of exploding supernovas. These events (~3 per year) will accumulate over time. [2] Given the secular claims of allegedly billions for these supernova remnants to accumulate over, we would expect MUCH more than the measure 200 that are currently visible within our own galaxy (the Crab Nebula included). [3,4]The only comment NASA have made in the matter are that these remenants are "mysteriously missing". However if this data is taken at face value, we can extrapolate the data and find that an age of ~ 10,000 years for the Milky Way is found! VIII. Galaxies are spinning too fast! It has long been known that galaxies should be flying apart with the tremendous rates at which they are rotating. There simply isn't enough mass within them to hold them together. [5] This problem has puzzled scientists for decades, and remains an unsolved 'problem' today. But taking the conventional view of what must be the case, it is clear that these galaxies are but a recent creation, and simply have not had enough time to fly apart yet. IX. Conclusion:The case is pretty much open and shut, I wish my opponent luck in his rebuttals. .. X. References:1. . http://www.creationresearch.org...2. . http://www.nasa.gov...3. . http://www.reasons.org...4. . http://science1.nasa.gov...5. . http://www.science-frontiers.com...