Questions about/problems with YEC

RightWingGirl said:

I am a young earth creationist.
I believe that the universe was created in six solar days around 6,000 years ago. Two human beings, Adam and Eve, were created, and from them are descended all mankind. The world was deluged by a world-wide flood some 4,000 years ago which destroyed all human life save eight people only, and these escaped in the ark along with at least two of every kind of land animal.

Click to expand...

There are a huge number of problems with this perspective when one checks it out against the observable world. I could list 3 dozen to start out with, but I'll stick to just 2 for now.

1. Why is there not a smidgeon of geological evidence for a global flood at any time, much less so recently, while evidence does exist throughout the geologic column falsifying the possibility of a global flood.

The last is important. It is not just that the evidence to substantiate a global flood is missing. It is also the case that evidence does exist which could not exist in the case of a global flood.

2. How did the immense diversity arise in all the realms of plant and animal life in the short period of time since the flood? In fact in the short period between Noah and Abraham, for nothing suggests that the ultra-rapid evolution this would require was still happening in Abraham's lifetime or later.

RightWingGirl said:

In my opinion the geological column was formed during and by the flood.

Click to expand...

This has already been refuted. Please check out http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH550.html for information, as well as source references for the refutation.

The majority of plant life would survive the flood, either in floating mats of plant life or separately. If it survived the flood then it would not have to evolve after the flood, but remain in much the same diversity and numbers that it was created in.

Click to expand...

This has already been refuted as well. Please check out http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH542.html for the refutation, as well as its source references.

RightWingGirl said:

In my opinion the geological column was formed during and by the flood.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but your opinion is not evidence. Your opinion does not dissolve the evidence that exists which could not exist if a global flood had occurred.

The majority of plant life would survive the flood, either in floating mats of plant life or separately. If it survived the flood then it would not have to evolve after the flood, but remain in much the same diversity and numbers that it was created in.

Click to expand...

My question was about plant and aminal life. You have only attempted to answer about plant life.

Furthermore, your answer is speculative. How would you test this hypothesis to give it a scientific grounding?

There are several other follow-up questions that I could propose, but let's stick with the two for now.

1. Why is there not a smidgeon of geological evidence for a global flood at any time, much less so recently, while evidence does exist throughout the geologic column falsifying the possibility of a global flood.

2. How did the immense diversity arise in all the realms of plant and animal life in the short period of time since the flood? In fact in the short period between Noah and Abraham, for nothing suggests that the ultra-rapid evolution this would require was still happening in Abraham's lifetime or later.

Be sure to check out the links Dannager supplied.

RightWingGirl said:

In my opinion the geological column was formed during and by the flood.

Click to expand...

And evidence falsifies your opinion.

If the geologic column was formed by the flood, how do you explain things like these dinosaur footprints and rooted trees on top of a coal seam but under additional sediment.

The geologic column continues right on through this layer.

How did they get there in the middle of a flood?

Can we assume that the layers below these tracks and trees was pre-flood?

If so, then why are there layers with footprints like this all through the geologic column?

If so, why don't they look all that different than supposed ones that were created during the flood? Where did the material and layers that created the coal come from? What about the ones below them?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coalprints.html
http://www.stadiumweb.com/reprints/parkerr.html

There is no logical way to explain this with flooding. This is just one example of evidence that shows the flooding model wrong.

There are dozens of independent lines of evidence just like this that need to be explained. You will not find much of an explaination for things like this on YEC sites. I've never seen this evidence addressed by Creationist ministries.

Have you?

If you are truely interested in understanding why the YEC model you described has been falsified, then you need to look in detail at the pieces of evidence we have.

Claiming that flooding causes layers doesn't address the issue. It is what is in those layers that needs to be addressed. Claiming that the Grand Canyon was formed by a flood doesn't address the issue. Identifying how all the layers were layed down, were turned to solid rock, and then were eroded would. Creationists don't address the rock issue.

YEC sources do not like to look at the detail and they don't want you to either.

RightWingGirl said:

If what I believe is wrong, I do not wish to countinue to belive YEC.

Click to expand...

The most wonderful thing is, you don't have to give up your faith in God, or your Christianity, or belief that the Holy Scriptures contain everything we need for salvation, when you give up your YEC belief.

I think this entire thread will end up being pointless. The best evidence we can offer is scientific evidence from scientific sources, and the best RWG can offer is pseudoscientific evidence and assertions with hand waving.

The reason is creationism doesn't publish scientific papers so it's not really a fair contest. Any evidence we give from a scientific source will be rebutted by a non-scientific source, however, this will be considered acceptable by RWG because there's a conspiracy against Creationism.

For example, if we point out that no short life isotopes that aren't daughter products from other sources exist on the Earth, she might counter that decay rates were not constant, or that those products might've never existed on the Earth on the first place. If we point out that too many meteor strikes for such a short period of time would fry the Earth, she might counter that this is evidence of the horrific nature of the Flood. If we point out that there's not enough water on the Earth to flood the Earth, she might counter that the Earth was flatter back then, or water from a vapor canopy contributed, or that water came from underneath the Earth. We tend to use science, Creationists tend to use other sources.

RightWingGirl said:

And rebuttal by Carl Wieland
The Green River Formation contains not only exceptionally preserved fish fossils, but also their coprolites (fossilized faeces) penetrating through several varves (layers). How could fish faeces fossilize if they took several years to be covered up? This speaks of rapid formation of the layers. Furthermore, the number of layers (varves) between two ash layers (representing evidence for two volcanic eruptions) varies greatly, showing that the number of varves is not consistent with any supposed annual cycle of deposition [see Fish preservation, fish coprolites and the Green River Formation and Green River Blues]. The flume tank experiments of Guy Berthault and others at the University of Colorado were cited; when rock with such ‘rhythmites’ was ground up and the particles deposited in flowing water, the ‘yearly bands’ reformed. Berthault et al have conclusively shown that alternating layers form spontaneously whenever two different particle sizes are deposited in flowing water [see Sedimentation Experiments: Nature Finally Catches Up! Sandy Stripes and Sediments]. This and the Mt St Helens pyroclastic flows were used to rebut the notion that the Flood would just mix things up and not form multiple layers [see Mount St. Helens—Evidence for Genesis!].

Click to expand...

I've noticed a trend in creationist arguments, especially ones designed to be recycled by others. They ask questions in the explanation. Scientific arguments do not. This is because when you ask a question during an explanation, especially one where the question implies that a certain answer is correct, you are misleading your audience. You are causing them to believe, a priori, that the assumption they believe that they themselves are making is correct. Scientific arguments don't use this tactic, as they already have the necessary information, with no need to convince the audience that the assumptions made are their own. This is pseudoscience at its best. I've bolded the questions I am talking about in both arguments.

Many of these are in fact proof of a global flood.
Further evidence against long ages is the existence of footprints in successive layers. There could have been no long ages between strata, otherwise they would have been eroded—how long do you think one of your footprints would last? They must have been preserved when the next macro-layer (often comprising many fine laminæ) was laid on top, especially with the cementing action of dissolved minerals. In Queensland, Australia, where we live, they have recently uncovered fossil footprints, and to illustrate our point, they very soon had to build a protective shed over them because they started eroding so quickly when exposed to the elements

Click to expand...

Huh. There it is again...

RightWingGirl said:

I am a young earth creationist.
I believe that the universe was created in six solar days around 6,000 years ago. Two human beings, Adam and Eve, were created, and from them are descended all mankind. The world was deluged by a world-wide flood some 4,000 years ago which destroyed all human life save eight people only, and these escaped in the ark along with at least two of every kind of land animal.

If what I believe is wrong, I do not wish to countinue to belive YEC. If I am wrong, it should be easy to prove that I am. In this thread I should like to try to answer any problems with this theory. If you have any questions about YEC, or problems with it, please post them.

Click to expand...

Greetings Right Wing Girl,

This subject has been one that has interested me for a long time. Initially, I held the same view as you do. My view changed in response to the question - "Can God Lie?" - I do not believe God would ever deceive us. He may hide many things, and He wants us to dig and discover, but He does not deceive.

Given that so many things in the observable creation are far more than six thousand years, it seemed reasonable to rethink my views. One of the most convincing indicators of an Old Creation is the Star canopy. We are seeing light that originated millions of light years ago. While God could have made that light visible to us in a Young creation, He would have had to be deceptive to do so.
Fossils that date much older than six thousand years are another indicator of an Old Earth creation.

Happily, none of this impacts the essentials of our faith. God has many mysteries yet to reveal to us, and will probably continue to do so throughout eternity.

See you there!

Cheers,

Rick

http://unclerickysperigrinations.blogspot.com/

RWG,
I know where you're coming from and sympathize with you.

Having said that I suggest that you reconcile an obviously old age earth and universe with what the bible actually says, literally. We've been through this before on another thread. A young age earth doesn't make sense biblically, or scientifically.

The problem isn't between God's word and science, which are actually in agreement if interpreted correctly. It's between christians and scientists.

There is no universal flood ring.

A Deluge described in the Bible would have created a worldwide ring of sediment uniformally at the same age level all around the Earth. There is no such ring, so therefore, there could never have been a worldwide Flood. There is absolutely no physical proof.

And since others in the past have tried to argued that, due to the catastrope, a ring of sediment would have been impossible, allow me to remind (or teach; whatever the case may be) you that the world has been through worse than a fictional world flood: the meteorite that helped wipe out almost all life and spelled doom for the dinosaurs did create a tiny ring of a special iron alloy that can be found universally around the world. The layer was jam-packed with the alloy, which is rediculously rare on Earth natively.

The only possible conclusion is that an asteroid was captured by the Earth's gravitation field because it came too close. Because of its awesome size and density, it was able to survive its fall through the atmosphere and hit (I believe) close to where the Yucatan is today. The meteroite was so large, that about a 1/10 of the world's surface was simply turned to molten goo.

If a ring can be left from that, it could be left from a worldwide Flood. No ring, no Flood.

In reference to random_guy's post, the problem is, other sources have no physical proof.

The real and final question is this: "is secular lesser than spiritual?"

There are three possible answers. One is orthodox, the other two are actually forms of Manicheanism.

PaladinValer said:

There is no universal flood ring.

Click to expand...

PaladinValer said:

"A Deluge described in the Bible would have created a worldwide ring of sediment uniformally at the same age level all around the Earth. There is no such ring, so therefore, there could never have been a worldwide Flood. There is absolutely no physical proof."

I would like to engage you on this 'flood ring', but I have never heard of it. What is it supposed to be , exactly?

Click to expand...

RightWingGirl said:

THere is an interesting theory which, while I am still not sure about it, might interest you on this matter. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/cosmology.asp

Click to expand...

Hate to tell you - that isn't a theory. I admits that solar system objects are much younger but then states if you don't see that then God created things appearing old as a way out of the real evidence. It also introduces the different clock rates in an entirely ad hoc manner with no physical mechanism except a supernatural changing of clock rates. Complete garbage - as are some of the so called evidences cited as showing the earth is near the centre of the universe or the sun is young.

In other words it is not a scientific theory.

RightWingGirl said:

Wouldn't God create in a state of full functioning maturity?

Click to expand...

No, not necessarily. That's an assumptions.

It wouldn't make sense that he would create a seed instead of a flower, or a fetus instead of a full-frown man.

Click to expand...

Sure it would. You say the chicken, but chickens come from eggs. Which come from chickens, which come from eggs. Keep going back, and you don't have chickens and eggs; you have an ancestor of chickens laying eggs. Keep going back, and you have reptiles laying eggs. Keep going back, and you have single-cell lifeforms that reproduce asexually through cellular division. How did these single-celled lifeforms initiate? Science doesn't know yet. Lightning is a potential answer...as is meteorite collision. It could be something else...it could be a combination of two or more things.

Or it could be God working through such things. Cannot God work through something to create something. If you want to read Genesis literally, he literally used earth to make a human being (even though there isn't a trace of earth in human DNA). That shows that God can and does use his creation to create new things.

By the same token He created the stars in a state of full functioning maturity--so we could see them.

Click to expand...

Where's the physical proof of this? For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, there is physical proof of physical actions. If something is done, proof is left behind to show it occurred.

If stars were created "in full maturity," then there should be proof of that. However, the proof shows that these stars began young. That implies that YECism doesn't hold up.

THere is an interesting theory which, while I am still not sure about it, might interest you on this matter. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/cosmology.asp

Click to expand...

This was already soundly defeated as above.

I have a question for you. When God told the Hebrews, in Exodus 20:11 "For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is]," What do you think the Hebrews, who believed in Genesis 1 literally, thought God meant by that?

Click to expand...

This is an assumption that they took it literally. And quite frankly, they thought that the Earth was a flat, circular disk with the abode of the dead literally beneath the Earth (as well as beneath a great subterranian sea) with four pillars holding up the sky, with the sun going around the Earth. Does that mean we should believe all that too? Because that's a literal taking of the Bible and ancient Hebrew cosmology?

And God, all knowing, knew that this verse would "deceived" them (if evolution is correct) even before He said it, and yet He said it.

Click to expand...

Why

Click to expand...

?

Click to expand...

Again, this is a speculation. The problem is, you've probably never heard of what is a "midrash." Many people who are not versed into Hebrew philosophy and writing are not familiar with it, so here it is: it is a way of writing in which a story or legend is written that illustrates moral and religious truths.

Or in other words, it is a Hebrew myth. A myth, contrary to whatever YECs think, doesn't mean "false." That is not the actual definition of a myth. It is a story, fictional or legendary, that teaches moral or religious truths.

1. Creation in seven days...the establishment of the week.
2. God rested on the seventh day...the institution and beginning of the concept of the Sabbath.
3. God actually created physical things...the physical existence isn't illusionary or evil but is real and good.
4. God created...He is all powerful

All this, without accepting Genesis 1 as literal. And all it takes is some knowledge of Hebrew writing and philosophy as well as a very scant knowledge of Hebrew linguistics and language.

oldwiseguy said:

I would like to engage you on this 'flood ring', but I have never heard of it. What is it supposed to be , exactly?

Click to expand...

The Earth constantly lays down additional layers of earth upon itself throughout time. These layers are created through various means...new earth generated by phenomenon like the Mid-Atlantic ridge where new earth is literally coming up from the mantle and spreads to the east and west (it is the reason why the Atlantic ocean is getting larger while the Pacific is getting smatter), vulcanism, and even meteorites.

When great calamities like a flood occur, they leave behind evidence that they occur. Take a look at the nile river; each year it flows, depositing a layer of rich silt that is phenominal for farming and cultivation. Now suppse it isn't farmed for a few years...when you do finally farm, there's a rather large layer of silt. Each new year atop an older year.

With floods, sediment is mixed up and carried. It is destinct; we can tell if there was a massive flood in an area depending on the earth in the layer. So if there really was a world-wide Deluge, there would be a layer of such sediment around the world. No layer, then no flood.

RightWingGirl said:

If the geological record was laid down almost entire by the world wide flood, than we should not find quite the flood ring you are looking for.

Click to expand...

1. This isn't even Biblical.
2. This isn't physically possible. Previous geological record would have been layed down through the years beforehand.

I have a question for you. Where are 70% of the fossils we should find if evolution were true?

Click to expand...

1. Fossilization is actually a rare process that requires special and right conditions of it to occur. Not all ancient bones get fossilized...it truly is a special and unique event.
2. Fossiles are discovered all the time. We probably haven't discovered even 5% of the fossils that are buried (or even found right on the surface of the Earth) around the world. New fossils are discovered all the time.

If Evolution were true, and we have been evolving for roughly the last 3,500 million years, and only in the past 1.6 million years we have had humans (erect), and modern animals in somthing like 250-300 million, and yet we have only a handful of sharply contested "missing links" to make up for 3,200 million years.

Click to expand...

Masses don't matter...quality does. In addition, just because certain fossils and remains haven't been found yet doesn't mean they won't be.

RightWingGirl said:

If the geological record was laid down almost entire by the world wide flood, than we should not find quite the flood ring you are looking for.

Click to expand...

But floods only lay down certain types of geological layers. For example, we would expect a layer of ash to come from a volcano eruption, not a flood. We expect it because when we look at volcanoes erupting, a layer of ash is what we get. When we look at floods, a layer of sediment is what we get. If there was a world-wide flood, it laid down a flood layer, not a volcanic layer. However, we don't have a universal flood layer.

RightWingGirl said:

I have a question for you. Where are 70% of the fossils we should find if evolution were true?

If Evolution were true, and we have been evolving for roughly the last 3,500 million years, and only in the past 1.6 million years we have had humans (erect), and modern animals in somthing like 250-300 million, and yet we have only a handful of sharply contested "missing links" to make up for 3,200 million years.

3,000 million years; why this large gap, where are the missing 80% of the fossils we should see? I know that few animals reach fossilization, so let us make it 50%. Where are these fossils? Half of the fossils we find should be "missing links"

Click to expand...

Is it 50%, 70%, or 80%? Why should half of the fossils we dig up be missing links? Wouldn't it make more sense if almost no fossils are missing links? What makes you think we're "missing" fossils? What makes you think Paleontologists have stopped digging for more? Where did you get your numbers?

I think I could explain young-Earth Creation in a way that a YEC would agree, and not accuse me of attacking a strawman. Can you explain Evolution in a way that a TE would agree? I ask because I don't think you know what Evolution says.