Evidence for Young Earth Creationism?

lifepsyop said:

Wow you must not be, or know many, programmers. If you have different design variations that have been developed in thoroughly unique ways, shoe-horning in the same complex solution for both of them would likely result in disaster. I think any programmer could immediately envision the number of bugs resulting from such a move. You'd likely have to make a ton of refinements and bug-fixes to both the original program and the newly added component.

The far more elegant solution (especially if you're not limited by time and resources), would be to develop unique solutions along the separate design branches.

Click to expand...

Totally and completely false.

Frameworks, libraries, published solutions, programming languages... and even algorithms are all examples of tools and techniques that violate nested hierarchy in programming.

lifepsyop said:

Of course we do. Human software development is often a nightmare where re-using components can be the safest and most practical solution.

But would a programmer choose to do it that way if he was constructing his magnum opus and had the ability to code masterpiecies instantaneously with no limiting parameters? From an artistic perspective, I think the answer is obvious.

Click to expand...

Your argument is completely inconsistent.

When we point out the lines of ancestry and the closely related families of life you claim that as evidence of a sensible programmer reusing working code.

Then when we point out that separate families all apparently crafted by the same programmer at the same time don't use those same sensible solutions you claim that no programmer would re use tools.

I suspect you have some limited experience in tech development... but in this situation you are just thrashing for an excuse and trying to keep on the offensive to conceal that.

lifepsyop said:

But that's just it... it doesn't look evolved. It looks like a large variety of very distinct living things popped out of nowhere.

It's you, the evolutionist, who have worked yourself into this hypnotic illusion that shared traits = relatedeness all the way down to where humans and onions share an ancestor. It's a huge leap of faith, yet because it's a "natural explanation", Evolution is automatically and uncritically lifted into a sacrosanct position. Because your religion/philosophy of nature-god is prioritized over the science.

Click to expand...

It's the same systems that demonstrate relatedness between parents, children and cousins... it also works on a larger scale.

Do yo have an explanation for the line of hominids over the last couple of million years, or would you just like to lie about rabbits some more?

lifepsyop said:

200+ years of storytelling is not a demonstration.

Click to expand...

Mutations = FACT
Inheritance = FACT
New Traits = FACT

Also, I'd be very cautious of using "200+ years of storytelling" as a form of insult when your extent of evidence is: "I really like this book, it's totally true, let me tell you the correct way to interpret it".

The OP asked for evidence of Young Earth creation--not proof. This is evidence, not proof:

Caltech Geologist Investigates Canyon Carved in Just Three Days in Texas Flood

Canyon in Texas was carved out of the ground in 3 days, by one flood. Not hundreds of millions of years.

usexpat97 said:

The OP asked for evidence of Young Earth creation--not proof. This is evidence, not proof:

Caltech Geologist Investigates Canyon Carved in Just Three Days in Texas Flood

Canyon in Texas was carved out of the ground in 3 days, by one flood. Not hundreds of millions of years.

Click to expand...

The problem, of course, is that geologists can actually tell the difference between a canyon that was carved in a short amount of time and one that was made over a long period of time. As that article talks about, mega floods have happened in history. They’re known. They’re not a new thing.

Not all canyons were made that way, and they can tell when such floods have occurred.

Grand Canyon Carved by Flood? Geologist Says No

From your own article about the Grand Canyon:

but geologists can't agree when it formed, or exactly how.

Click to expand...

So no, they cannot "know". They weren't there. They can form expert opinions which can be wrong, and that's the best you're going to get.

usexpat97 said:

So no, they cannot "know".

Click to expand...

They can know somethings. For instance, they can rule out that it was created by, say, invisible canyon gnomes. And they can know, based on evidence, that it was created over a long period of time, and not in a single flood event.

They weren't there.

Click to expand...

So? Not being present at a certain event doesn't mean you can't know things about that event. You don't have to personally witness a murder to convict someone of the crime.

If you come home and you find your couch has paw prints all over, and your dog is covered in mud and sleeping on the couch, you don't have to be there to know your dog probably got your couch dirty. It's possible that some other dog came in, got the couch dirty, then left through unknown means, or even that someone put the paw prints on the couch and got your dog dirty to frame him for some strange reason, but the logical conclusion is to just blame your dog.

They can form expert opinions which can be wrong, and that's the best you're going to get.

Click to expand...

And that's more than enough.

Just because there's some argument over the details doesn't mean that any random musing is on equal footing.

The canyon at Canyon Lake was formed in 3 days; not millions of years. And that is evidence of Young Earth Creation. End of story.

usexpat97 said:

The canyon at Canyon Lake was formed in 3 days; not millions of years. And that is evidence of Young Earth Creation. End of story.

Click to expand...

So let me understand your thinking correctly - you’ll take the word of geologists when they tell you a canyon was formed in three days, but not when they tell you a canyon was formed in millions of years?

So, basically, you just pick and choose the evidence you want to accept.

Dude...the reason we know that canyon was created in 3 days was because it happened in 2002. People were living there. They saw it with their own eyes. Were it not so, you and I already know exactly what would have happened: some "expert" would have come along and said how quickly that canyon was formed through flooding, but in geological time. Say, as short as 1,000 years. You know it's true.

A little more evidence: woolly mammoths walked the earth at the same time as Moses.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-last-mammoths-died-out-just-3600-years-ago-but-th-5896262

This is accepted by mainstream science. You can go to a Museum of Natural History where they have a mammoth skeleton, and they will freely admit this fact.

usexpat97 said:

Dude...the reason we know that canyon was created in 3 days was because it happened in 2002. People were living there. They saw it with their own eyes.

Click to expand...

And it compares that flood with similar floods on Mars.

...come to think of it, how does THAT fit into a young earth model? Because Mars has been pretty clearly devoid of enough water for that for a long, LONG time. Not to mention, I can't see the point of God flooding a planet with no life on it...

Were it not so, you and I already know exactly what would have happened some "expert" would have come along and said how quickly that canyon was formed through flooding, but in geological time. Say, as short as 1,000 years. You know it's true.

Click to expand...

That is nothing but a bald assertion on your part. And incorrect. There are examples of megafloods in Earth's history, formations that geologists acknowledge were created in a short amount of time. They know what they look like.

Also, it just occurred to me how silly an argument this is. Even if geologists acknowledged that every canyon on the planet was made in a short amount of time - which they don't - that wouldn't mean the Earth itself was young. You don't measure how old something is by the things that happened to it after it was made. That'd be like saying a teenager was three days old because that was when a zit showed up on his forehead.

usexpat97 said:

A little more evidence: woolly mammoths walked the earth at the same time as Moses.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-last-mammoths-died-out-just-3600-years-ago-but-th-5896262

This is accepted by mainstream science. You can go to a Museum of Natural History where they have a mammoth skeleton, and they will freely admit this fact.

Click to expand...

Yeah. There were a few mammoths around when Moses was still alive - well, assuming Moses was ever a real person, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

So? So what?

USincognito said:

Change it to Precambrian shark and it's still correct.

Now how are you going to twist out of it?

Click to expand...

And how well would your precambrian sharks thrive in such an ecosystem? My guess is, not very well.

As far as life's presence or absence in the rock record... my response will generally be that: "the animal was or wasn't part of that particular ecozone or ecosystem represented in those rock layers"

I don't expect to find bunny rabbits hopping around with trilobytes for the same reason I don't expect to find any larger terrestrial animals in the lower paleozoic rock layers.

You'll scoff at this explanation like it's inferior, yet you employ the same ad-hoc logic. If the animal is present then '"Natural Selection did it".... if the animal is absent then "Natural Selection did it"... You'll dress up your answer in as much fancy language as possible, but it will still boil down to that.

Actually my response is the far more objective one, whereas your response employs fanciful "fish-turning-into-people" darwinian mysticism.

juvenissun said:

Why don't you say a farmer can also get a Ph.D.?

Click to expand...

It isn't necessary to understand the basics of evidence. For a complete understanding or to work in a field then some level of advanced education (or equivalent study) would be needed, but the basics can be explained to someone who is willing to put in the effort.

Religion does not have that advantage. Religious evidence is personal and based on faith... and is thus completely subjective.

Shemjaza said:

It isn't necessary to understand the basics of evidence. For a complete understanding or to work in a field then some level of advanced education (or equivalent study) would be needed, but the basics can be explained to someone who is willing to put in the effort.

Religion does not have that advantage. Religious evidence is personal and based on faith... and is thus completely subjective.

Click to expand...

So, that is the nature of something called an evidence.
No one can say there is no evidence of God. In fact, there are millions of evidences of God.

juvenissun said:

So, that is the nature of something called an evidence.
No one can say there is no evidence of God. In fact, there are millions of evidences of God.

Click to expand...

There might be, but it isn't objective or independently varifiable.

Shemjaza said:

Totally and completely false.

Frameworks, libraries, published solutions, programming languages... and even algorithms are all examples of tools and techniques that violate nested hierarchy in programming.

Click to expand...

You're focusing on systems intentionally designed for the purpose of violating nested hierachies... (i.e. designed for new updates, plugins, etc.) invoking frameworks that involve thousands of individual programmers and competing design visions.

Try asking a game developer how he feels about pulling components from a different project and integrating them into a new project at a nearly complete alpha/beta stage... components that will fundamentally affect the core of the program. I'll give you a hint, he'll plan to spend the next few days, weeks, or months fixing the bugs he can see, and then looking for the myriad of bugs he hasn't found yet but he knows are there. It might be the most practical solution for him for the time being, but it sure isn't pretty.

Shemjaza said:

Your argument is completely inconsistent.

When we point out the lines of ancestry and the closely related families of life you claim that as evidence of a sensible programmer reusing working code.

Then when we point out that separate families all apparently crafted by the same programmer at the same time don't use those same sensible solutions you claim that no programmer would re use tools.

Click to expand...

A designer creating unique variations drawn or inspired from a basic template is substantially different than swapping around components on a collection of finished or nearly-finished creations. The former is an elegant and graceful solution, and one of creative continuity, wherase the latter feels hamfisted and clumsy, as if the designer lacked forethought and blundered into missing gaps in the overall design.

Shemjaza said:

It's the same systems that demonstrate relatedness between parents, children and cousins... it also works on a larger scale.

Click to expand...

As is usual for evolutionists, you're assuming the very thing being debated. (Universal Common Ancestry/Shared traits=relatedness across all of life)

Not to mention, it isn't even consistent with modern evolution theory, as theoretically the same, virtually indistinguishable traits could evolve independently multiple times if the selection pressures are high enough, providing a false signal of homology. Most evolutionists don't even understand their theory this well, though.

Shemjaza said:

Do yo have an explanation for the line of hominids over the last couple of million years, or would you just like to lie about rabbits some more?

Click to expand...

Do you have an explanation for why hominids "evolved" only within the last several million years?

Let me guess.... Natural selection did it.... Right?

Shemjaza said:

Mutations = FACT
Inheritance = FACT
New Traits = FACT

Click to expand...

Yes, and those "new traits" are always so compelling aren't they?

Shemjaza said:

There might be, but it isn't objective or independently varifiable.

Click to expand...

Some are, some are not.
It depends on what the purpose of the evidence is for.

My purpose of this argument is to crash the claim: There is no evidence for the existence of God. People who said this have no idea on what does an evidence mean.

juvenissun said:

Some are, some are not.
It depends on what the purpose of the evidence is for.

My purpose of this argument is to crash the claim: There is no evidence for the existence of God. People who said this have no idea on what does an evidence mean.

Click to expand...

So give us an example.

Speedwell said:

So give us an example.

Click to expand...

I can say something on the earth which we do not know the origin. That would be the evidences of God. Make sense?

lifepsyop said:

And how well would your precambrian sharks thrive in such an ecosystem? My guess is, not very well.

Click to expand...

Surely you cannot be this obtuse. Haldane's apocryphal quote was meant to be pithy. The fact that you're overthinking it suggests you're just desperately trying to find a way to define or semantics your way out of the fact that truly out of place fossils will falsify evolution.

lifepsyop said:

As far as life's presence or absence in the rock record... my response will generally be that: "the animal was or wasn't part of that particular ecozone or ecosystem represented in those rock layers"

I don't expect to find bunny rabbits hopping around with trilobytes for the same reason I don't expect to find any larger terrestrial animals in the lower paleozoic rock layers.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry for the all caps, but this hasn't seemed to register previously - IT'S NOT ABOUT THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT. IT'S ABOUT THE LAYERS AND THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF FOSSILS IN THE LAYERS.

No one expects to find a rabbit in marine sediment and no one expects to find a trilobite in fossilized paleosols. We DO however, expect to find rabbits only in Paleogene, Miocene and Quaternary strata. If we were to find a rabbit in Precambrian, or Silurian, or Permian or Jurassic or Cretaceous strata that would falsify evolution.

If we were to find:
A Cretacous whale
A Jurassic Mosasaur
A Permian Ichthyosaur
A Carboniferous Dimetrodon
A Devonian Diapsid
An Ordovician Placoderm
Or a Cambrian rabbit.

Any and all of them would falsify evolution.

lifepsyop said:

You'll scoff at this explanation like it's inferior, yet you employ the same ad-hoc logic. If the animal is present then '"Natural Selection did it".... if the animal is absent then "Natural Selection did it"... You'll dress up your answer in as much fancy language as possible, but it will still boil down to that.

Click to expand...

I need you to do me a favor and argue against the points I actually make and not shticky fantasies you have in head. Capice?

lifepsyop said:

Actually my response is the far more objective one, whereas your response employs fanciful "fish-turning-into-people" darwinian mysticism.

Click to expand...

Calling the fact that humans are highly derived Sarcoptyrigians "darwinian mysticism" betrays an ignorance of the evidence supporting it.