Questions about/problems with YEC

[PaladinValer]

Assume for a momnet I am correct. What proof would ther be? What would you look for?

Trace physical evidence. All physical calamities leave physical evidence. A local dought means that local trees grow much more slowly (and thus, tree rings are narrowly space), to give one example.

If you read throught the whole article they expain why the clock rates change, and it's not supernatural. If you want more information, you can also look here.

Which has already been defeated due to application of psuedoscience.

Do you have any sources to confirm this?
THe only basis for the "flat earth, geocentic" Hebrew consomolgy I have ever found was odd interpretations of various verses of the Bible that have sometimes been thought to mean this. However the Bible nowhere implies that the world is flat. If you are interested in the subject, Christian Answers has a short article about it here.

That is false. If CA really is going to say that, they are outstandingly dishonest.

Anyone who is going to read the Bible literally is going to come to the conclusion that the Earth is flat.

The same people who deny evolution. The only thing is that they don't go as far as YECs. They exist, and there are societies that are formed and membered by them.

All because a literal reading of the Bible tells them so. And actually, literally, they are right.

If the pre-flood world was very stable, and lasted only 2,000 years, what kind of a record would you expect it to leave?

What you don't seem to understand is that the Earth isn't stable; it is ever changing.

I am aware that few fossils are ever found, and that is why (if for some reason more modern animals tended to end up fossilized raher than animals that lived a longer time ago) I only expect 50%, not 75%. Of those 5% we have found, at very least 40% would be missing links.

This is the same fallacy as before. Not only because you assume we'd find something by now, but also because we have found something.

The orginial number I came up with was 70%. I would not be as sceptical if I could at least be shown that 10% of the fossils we find are "missing links" or "in-betweens". Only 10% from 70%!

No, sorry, but that isn't how things works. Quantity means nothing; quality does. An experiment can be done 1000 times over and each time is worthless if something goes wrong each time. It takes only one experiment of perfect quality, not thousands. It takes but one fossil, not thousands.

According to the theory of Evolution--- all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point some 10-20 billion years ago, and then it exploded in the "Big bang" The universe was then very hot, and animatter and matter colided with each other creating pure energy. Around 4.5 billion years ago the sun (and other parts of our solar sytem) formed. Our earth came along as a hot, molten sphere. The earth gradually cooled, and throught some unknown process, simple, single-celled organisms called "prokaryotes" appeared around 3.7 billion years ago. real "Evolution" which is supposed to center on biology began then. Land masses began shifting and seperateing. Throught millions of generations small changes built up and were favored by natural selection to prodcue more complex forms of life. Through the various eons and eras of the geological column life became more and more diverse and varied--Dinos evolved from primitive archosaurs, and were suddenly and mysteriously destroyed during the Cretaceous period. From dinos evloved birds; leaping from trees & odd "hair like follocules" evolved into feathers. "Genus Australopithecus" appeared from the monkey, 4 - 2.75 million years ago, and evolved, etc, thought various Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons etc. Ice ages came and went, and we arrive at ancient history. Or at least you do if you belive all of the above. I do not.

There are too many problems in this...where to begin?

Common Mistake Made by YECs Way too Many Times #1: Evolution IS NOT DEPENDENT ON UNIVERSE FORMATION.

Common Mistake Made by YECs Way too Many Times #2: Evolution and Abiogenesis (or Evolution and Biogenesis) are NOT DEPENDENT.

Common Mistake Made by YECS Way too Many Times #3: Evolution states that all life forms evolved from a COMMON ANCESTOR.

If you want to debate evolution, at least do us the favor of learning what evolution is and isn't before assuming so much.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well I was technically commenting upon the thread purpose itself which was set up in a disingenuous manner by a Moderator (child) no less.

A moderator none the less, you had better think about that one KerrMetric.

Well the latest results I believe put life at 3.8 Gyr ago. And the major phyla without precursors is almost undoubtedly a selection effect. It is known that many of the phyla had Pre-Cambrian precursors. Also the radiation in the PreCambrian also has to correlated with the reducing atmosphere slowly changing over to an oxidising one.

Oh, of course, there is more oxegen. That does not explain the rise of most of the traits we classify taxa with appearing in such a brief space of time.

Why do Creationists expect a perfect fossil record? What makes them believe that evolution should be cranking away at the same rate throughout geologic history?

We don't really expect it to be perfect, just not that sudden. Nothing going on for a billion years and then, presto, life emerges. Then for no apparent reason after 2 billion years, presto, eukaryotes emerge. Then for no real reason every major phylum appears out of nowhere.

Not perfect? Try inexplicable leaps in the evolutionary chain.

What do you expect? It seems every Creationist demands every i dotting and t crossed OR they toss out the entire theory. Yet they apply this logic to nothing else. The fact is the evidence from so many sources that evolution occurs and has occurred in the past is overwhelming. Whether it be the fossil record, molecular biology or developmental biology.

I expect a rational explanation for these tremendous leaps in evolution. It does not matter where the evidence comes from, the conclusion allways fits the assumption.

I agree with the asking questions but the all around silliness of the questions on here sometimes is embarrassing.

I think I know what you mean, I hate it when the question of proof is begged on hands and knees.

By the way your comments about H. Habilis brain size changes are wrong from what I remember.

Do you remember the change in cranial capacity between Homo habilis and Homo erectus by any chance?

 

[RightWingGirl]

Not only is a lot of that superfluous to evolution (and some of it just plain wrong) this entire thread is disingenuous.

You start off asking why to change your opinion but then just regurgitate your opinion - the opinion of a 16 year old child (speaking of which how does a child get to Moderate a primarily adult forum?) who doesn't know any science.

What is the point.

I understand that Evolution is supposed to deal with biology only. That is why I said

through unknown process, simple, single-celled organisms called "prokaryotes" appeared around 3.7 billion years ago. Real "Evolution" which is supposed to center on biology began then.

You mentioned that I said something which were, in your opinion, totally wrong. Would you please specify what I said that was incorrect?



The theory of Evolution
A process by which populations get and pass on new traits from generation to generation. Through natural selection and evolution new specis are said to be created. Natural selection is the idea that organisms which have variations giving them beneficial transmissible traits are more likely to stay alive and reproduce and thus, enlarge the frequency of such traits in following generations.Species are related to each other through common descent, products of speciation and evolution over millions of years.

 

[KerrMetric]

A moderator none the less, you had better think about that one KerrMetric.

No you had better think about that one - or certainly the thread starter had better remember since they should be held to a higher standard. It's about the first rule of management.

Oh, of course, there is more oxegen. That does not explain the rise of most of the traits we classify taxa with appearing in such a brief space of time.

Not as brief as Creationists like to portray.

We don't really expect it to be perfect, just not that sudden. Nothing going on for a billion years and then, presto, life emerges. Then for no apparent reason after 2 billion years, presto, eukaryotes emerge. Then for no real reason every major phylum appears out of nowhere.

This is not a true account of the facts. Eukaryotes date back at least 2 billion years. And every major phylum does not appear out of nowhere. And phylum is probably not the correct level to look at this anyway.

Not perfect? Try inexplicable leaps in the evolutionary chain.

How so?

Do you remember the change in cranial capacity between Homo habilis and Homo erectus by any chance?

Habilis is in the 550 - 750 cc range and Erectus are 800 - 1100cc range.

 

[mark kennedy]

No you had better think about that one - or certainly the thread starter had better remember since they should be held to a higher standard. It's about the first rule of management.

There has not been the slightest infraction of the rules on her part. Enough said on that point.

Not as brief as Creationists like to portray.

Reputable evolutionists readily admit to the suddeness of the Cambriagn explosion, why do you think they call it an explosion?

This is not a true account of the facts. Eukaryotes date back at least 2 billion years. And every major phylum does not appear out of nowhere. And phylum is probably not the correct level to look at this anyway.

The eukaryotes emerge about 1.7 billion years ago. The major phylum show up in the about 570-510 billion years ago. Precursors are hard to come by in either epoch. No real explanation is offered for either.

How so?

For instance, there is no reason to believe that a bacteria or Archea cell can develop a nucleous to house DNA. Still that is what must have happened.

Habilis is in the 550 - 750 cc range and Erectus are 800 - 1100cc range.

So in a range of a few hundred thousand years the cranial capacity does a giant leap. It's not just the brain mass but the cranium and other metabolic functions that would have to evolve as well. The effects of changes involved in neural functions are well noted in modern science. It results in things like epilipsy, autism, tumors and the like. Not one beneficial effect from this kind of a change in the protein coding genes involved in neural developmental genes but, hey, it must have happened. We couldn't be the result of being fully formed by God's divine will right?

I'm not buying it.

 

[KerrMetric]

Reputable evolutionists readily admit to the suddeness of the Cambriagn exposion, why do you think they call it an explosion?

Yes but not in the sense most Creationists use the word. It was still a long time span.

So in a range of a few hundred thousand years the cranial capacity does a giant leap. It's not just the brain mass but the cranium and other metabolic functions that would have to evolve as well. The effects of changes involved in neural functions are well noted in modern science. It results in things like epilipsy, autism, tumors and the like. Not one beneficial effect from this kind of a change in the protein coding genes involved in neural developmental genes but, hey, it must have happened.

The fact is there is an observed date/brain size correlation with Erectus. The early ones are only somewhat larger than Habilis whereas the later ones almost a million years later are close to Sapiens.

Your metabolic/neural function comment seems a non sequitor to the discussion.

We couldn't be the result of being fully formed by God's soverien will right?

No we weren't

I'm not buying it.

That's OK Mark. The people who actually know what they are doing do.

 

[shernren]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/cosmology.asp

If this is a scientific explanation then I must be a Nobel Prize physicist.

... for the first time I'm not just seeing YEC pseudoscience, I'm seeing YEC pseudomath. I'm utterly appalled by the terse "mathematical" statements under the "Calculations" section. Anyone who understood what they were doing (or trying to do) would surely have been satisfied by even two lines more (the form of the tensor and the time at which the partial derivative was taken). I'm extremely surprised that anybody with even an undergraduate degree in any science would try to use this to support his/her views. Now, to lay the smackdown in layman terms. ...

The offending section:

Let’s do a few simple calculations. Let us suppose that the relative rate of clocks on Earth compared to astronomical clocks during Creation Week was

(1)​

where t0 represents time on Earth and t represents time in the cosmos (same for all clocks everywhere except on Earth). By integrating over the 24 hours of Day 4 (assuming = 0.003 years approximately), we can calculate the time available in the cosmos for a photon to travel to Earth. It follows from (1),

(2)​

There is more than sufficient time during Creation Week.

I'm assuming the reason they use that fancy cursive d in their dt0/dt is because it's a partial derivative, in other words a derivative of a multivariable function. To give a layman's analogy, let's say I have a supercar which is completely independent of environmental factors and the amount of passengers it is carrying. In that case the distance it can travel would only depend on the amount of fuel it has, and I'd say that the distance per gallon is so much. That's a derivative, in math-lingo. But our everyday cars depend not just on the amount of fuel, but also the weather conditions, the road speed, the number of people on board, and so I'd say that the distance per gallon assuming everything else is constant is so much. That's a partial derivative, in math-lingo, and that's what the fancy cursive d in their pseudomath denotes.

So I'm assuming that they have an equation in which the "time on earth" (t0) depends not only on the cosmological time (t) but also on spatial distribution (x, y, z) so that their fancy dt0/dt means "keeping all other factors constant, the earth time changes with respect to cosmological time in such a manner". First problem: note that in a partial derivative all other factors are kept constant, or in other words this equation must hold true for every spatial position in the universe ... not just earth. Unless they show the equation, which is that "one extra line" which would have satisfied me. Second problem: it's a constant independent of time. In other words, it must hold true at any time on Planet Earth, not just during Creation Week. Even right now. Unless, again, they supply the 4-D equation / function they are deriving this relationship from.

Gee, this is enough of a mess already. But it's even more ludicrous when they start throwing around their lingo about "integrating" and what-not. I think they were just trying to scare all those not-so-math-inclined people into believing that anything backed up with a few arcane symbols must be true as proclaimed by the scientific priesthood. Because I can summarise that whole symbolic nonsense into:

"Dividing .003 years by 10^-13 gives 30 billion years."

It's entirely equivalent to that whole load of mathematica they threw in. Basically to "integrate" means to find the area between the graph of a certain function and the x-axis when it is plotted. Now, let's say I have a line that is 5 units above the x-axis all the time. What is the area under that graph from x = 0 to x = 5? Why, 25 units square, of coruse. That's all the integration sign means in that instant since they already said the rate was a constant: it just means multiplication.

Note that they never supply the function from which they get their dt0/dt, even though it would take up at most a few lines (what more with such a simple ratio popping up). This shows squarely that this is not a scientific exploration of the issue. This is more like "gee, what would happen if God somehow slowed down time on earth - hey! we get away scot-free!" There is no scientific explanation whatsoever postulated for that mysterious number they suddenly obtain, which is extremely precise to the point that it seems to have been conjured out of the air for a quick fix.

This article has caused me to lose what little respect I had for AiG.

 

[gluadys]

Wouldn't God create in a state of full functioning maturity? It wouldn't make sense that he would create a seed instead of a flower, or a fetus instead of a full-frown man. By the same token He created the stars in a state of full functioning maturity--so we could see them.

Well, now you are dealing with theology, not science. You are trying to read God's mind. But can any of us really do that?

Why wouldn't God begin things from seed instead of maturity? To me that makes more sense. You disagree. How could we establish which one of us is thinking more like God?

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

As stated in other posts, this is not a theory. It is ad hoc speculation whose only purpose is to try and get to a fore-ordained conclusion. It is not science.

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? 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. Why?

They probably would not think about it literally at all. Numbers in biblical stories often have symbolical significance. 7 for example, is the number of perfection and it makes sense that creation be symbolically perfected in 7 days whatever the actual time. It also provides a rational for sabbath observance.

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

What makes you think we should expect any fossils at all?

If you read throught the whole article they expain why the clock rates change, and it's not supernatural.

I read the whole article. I saw no such explanation.

Do you have any sources to confirm this?
THe only basis for the "flat earth, geocentic" Hebrew consomolgy I have ever found was odd interpretations of various verses of the Bible that have sometimes been thought to mean this. However the Bible nowhere implies that the world is flat.

It nowhere implies anything else. In The Christian Topography a 6th century Christian theologian argues that the biblical writings do not support a spherical earth and therefore this notion derived from the pagan study of the Greeks must be rejected in favour of the Biblical witness to a flat earth. He even attempts to refute some of the scientific observations which were used to support a spherical earth and reconcile these observations with a flat-earth topology.

If you are interested in the subject, Christian Answers has a short article about it here.

You really need to get some better sources of information.

Job 26:7 says nothing about space.

Both Job 26:10 and Isaiah 40:21-22 as well as Proverbs 8:27 are describing the drawing of a circle with a compass, as you do in math class. The rest of the Isaiah passage even goes on to compare the heavens being set up over the compassed area like a tent, as if the circle is the floor of the tent. I never saw a spherical tent-floor. And Job 26:11 refers specifically to the pillars of heaven---not needed in the spherical earth model.

Job was not, as the article suggests, one of the oldest books of the OT, but one of the newest, probably written in the 5th century BCE i.e. after the return from the Babylonian exile.

Nor was the spherical shape of our planet a "conclusion easily drawn", but one that required careful observation and logical reasoning. It is not immediately apparent to unlearned people that the shadow cast across the sun or the moon during an eclipse is that of the earth. That is something that has to be figured out.

It is always easier to come to such conclusions in hind-sight, when you already know what the answer is. But that trivializes the original thinking that developed the answer in the first place.

If, as is thought, the continents split during the flood we would expect to find huge amounts of ash and volcanic debris in the geological column.

Why? Are you aware that the signs of vulcanism are different for those in which volcanoes erupt underwater than for those erupting in the atmosphere?

The theory of Evolution
A process by which populations get and pass on new traits from generation to generation. Through natural selection and evolution new specis are said to be created. Natural selection is the idea that organisms which have variations giving them beneficial transmissible traits are more likely to stay alive and reproduce and thus, enlarge the frequency of such traits in following generations.Species are related to each other through common descent, products of speciation and evolution over millions of years.

This attempt is much better than the first. Now what are your objections to this theory?

Do you disagree that species acquire and pass on new characteristics?

Do you disagree that some traits allow for better reproductive success than others? (i.e. natural selection).

Do you disagree that in some circumstances, ongoing evolution leads to speciation?

Do you disagree that species are related to each other by common descent?

 

[random_guy]

I understand that Evolution is supposed to deal with biology only. That is why I said

You mentioned that I said something which were, in your opinion, totally wrong. Would you please specify what I said that was incorrect?

Let's start with the opening sentence...


According to the theory of Evolution--- all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point some 10-20 billion years ago, and then it exploded in the "Big bang" The universe was then very hot, and animatter and matter colided with each other creating pure energy. Around 4.5 billion years ago the sun (and other parts of our solar sytem) formed. Our earth came along as a hot, molten sphere. The earth gradually cooled, and throught some unknown process, simple, single-celled organisms called "prokaryotes" appeared around 3.7 billion years ago.


None of this has anything to do with the theory of evolution, nor does the theory say anything about this. Why would you put this? That would be like saying, according the germ theory, all life began in a primordial sludge, then diversified over several million years and...yada yada yada....germ theory.


real "Evolution" which is supposed to center on biology began then. Land masses began shifting and seperateing. Throught millions of generations small changes built up and were favored by natural selection to prodcue more complex forms of life. Through the various eons and eras of the geological column life became more and more diverse and varied--Dinos evolved from primitive archosaurs, and were suddenly and mysteriously destroyed during the Cretaceous period. From dinos evloved birds; leaping from trees & odd "hair like follocules" evolved into feathers. "Genus Australopithecus" appeared from the monkey, 4 - 2.75 million years ago, and evolved, etc, thought various Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons etc. Ice ages came and went, and we arrive at ancient history. Or at least you do if you belive all of the above. I do not.

Land mass shifting? That's geology. Nothing with real biology evolution. Again, lots of fluff.

The theory of Evolution
A process by which populations get and pass on new traits from generation to generation. Through natural selection and evolution new specis are said to be created. Natural selection is the idea that organisms which have variations giving them beneficial transmissible traits are more likely to stay alive and reproduce and thus, enlarge the frequency of such traits in following generations.Species are related to each other through common descent, products of speciation and evolution over millions of years.

Now we're getting somewhere. Why didn't you put this instead of all that filler/fluff? Only thing I might say about this is that a more concise version would be the change of allele frequencies over time caused by selection, differential reproductive sucess, and mutation.

 

[Dannager]

I understand that Evolution is supposed to deal with biology only. That is why I said

Then why did you say "According to the theory of evolution" followed by a whole bunch of things that weren't according to the theory of evolution? In fact, a whole bunch of things that have very little relation at all to the theory of evolution, even in a tangential fashion. Why did you include all of that and claim that it was what the theory of evolution said?

 

[RightWingGirl]

This attempt is much better than the first. Now what are your objections to this theory?

Do you disagree that species acquire and pass on new characteristics?

Do you disagree that some traits allow for better reproductive success than others? (i.e. natural selection).

Do you disagree that in some circumstances, ongoing evolution leads to speciation?

Do you disagree that species are related to each other by common descent?

I should like to keep this thread on-topic, but if none of you have any more objections with YEC, or problems with it--reasons why it couldn't have happened, than I would be glad to go on to discuss evolution.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Evolution , as put forth here, must agree with scripture, not the other way around. At least in the broad sense.

For example, if there were dinosaurs (monsters) they were created, and destroyed, by God, for a reason. Rather than study the dinosaurs, find out the reason.

If you are getting too far ahead of creation history then it would behoove you to take a break from evolution and study the bible more, so your spiritual side can catch up to your scientific side.

Ask God to clear up the seeming contradictions between science and scripture, as this is a very devisive issue.

Each side is trying to dazzle the other with brilliance, which just leads to more confusion. If your premise is wrong, your conclusion will be ridiculous. The premise of both sides seems to be that there can be no agreement between science and scripture.

And of course this is ridiculous, as science and scripture must agree, when each is properly understood.

.

 

[KerrMetric]

Each side is trying to dazzle the other with brilliance

LOL. I seriously doubt the Creationist community has ever dazzled anyone with brilliance. Howls of laughter yes, brilliance no.

And of course this is ridiculous, as science and scripture must agree, when properly understoodl.

Not they must not. They can but they don't have to.

 

[Willtor]

I should like to keep this thread on-topic, but if none of you have any more objections with YEC, or problems with it--reasons why it couldn't have happened, than I would be glad to go on to discuss evolution.

I, for one, would not like to "go on" to discuss Evolution. But I think it is applicable to the YEC discussion. The reason is that the general YEC community (in my experience) regards YEC as a scientifically defensible position. I think it is not. And I would cite the evidence for Evolution as a partial refutation.

If you think that YEC is scientifically defensible, then Evolution is relevant. If you think YEC is not scientifically defensible, then I'm happy to agree and discuss other aspects of YEC if it pleases you.

 

[Willtor]

Evolution , as put forth here, must agree with scripture, not the other way around. At least in the broad sense.

For example, if there were dinosaurs (monsters) they were created, and destroyed, by God for a reason. Rather than study the dinosaurs, find out the reason.

If you are getting too far ahead of bible history then it would behoove you to take a break from evolution and study the bible more, so your spiritual side can catch up to your scientific side.

Ask God to clear up the seeming contradictions between science and scripture, as this is a very devisive issue.

Each side is trying to dazzle the other with brilliance, which just leads to more confusion. If your premise is wrong, your conclusion will be ridiculous. The premice of both sides seems to be that there is no agreement between science and scripture.

And of course this is ridiculous, as science and scripture must agree, when properly understoodl.

We can reason through scientific facts simply through observation and experimentation, but there is very little we can say about God without His revelation. Which purpose do you think the Bible serves? Nobody considers it a problem when we can infer, from a Physics textbook, that Pi = 3.14. It doesn't, but that's not what the textbook is trying to communicate. 3.14 is sufficient for its purposes in what it is trying to communicate. When we try to infer Pi's exact value, we are asking the book (or the author) the wrong questions. When we can infer that Pi = 3 in the Bible, why should this bother anyone? It bothers many people, but that's only because they're asking the wrong questions.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Trace physical evidence. All physical calamities leave physical evidence. A local dought means that local trees grow much more slowly (and thus, tree rings are narrowly space), to give one example.

And what trace physical evidence would you look for specifically?

What you don't seem to understand is that the Earth isn't stable; it is ever changing.

Yes, if the earth is 4.5 billion years, and if it began as a molten ball, than you would be correct. It is now, but it may not have been in the past. Sir, if we debate from the point of view that Evolution is 100% fact then we won’t get very far. If someone says that YEC is wrong because Evolution is right, than we have no room for debate, because such a strong bias leaves nothing for logical discussion.
YEC cannot be judged from the standpoint that Evolution is already correct, and visa versa. I could maintain that birds did not come from dinosaurs because I know that birds were created separately, and whenever proof is offered to the contrary, say that it is incorrect, because I already know that the bird was created separately. And I know that I sometimes tend to do just that. It is hard to try to be intellectually honest. But when you look at young earth creationism, please for a moment imagine that the theory of Evolution never existed, and judge YEC on it’s own merits, and by that let it stand or fall.




What are your objections to young earth creationism as a theory?

 

[RightWingGirl]

If you think that YEC is scientifically defensible, then Evolution is relevant. If you think YEC is not scientifically defensible, then I'm happy to agree and discuss other aspects of YEC if it pleases you.

I should like to see if YEC is defensible, and that is why I am asking for objections. What reasons have you that it couldn't have happened?

 

[KerrMetric]

What are your objections to young earth creationism as a theory?

It's NOT a theory. How many times does that have to be said to sink in? At best it is an attempt to poke holes in science. It never makes predictions of its own. It never sets itself up for testing.

It plays the same game that cosmological nonsense model you linked to earlier. If the evidence is against it then it just inserts God when necessary. Which is necessary all the time.

I have nothing against YEC if they just say it was all supernatural and they don't care about God creating a false history. Bad theology but OK. It is when these people pretend it is actually science I have a problem with it. It isn't - it is simplistic garbage that at its root cause is put forth by a bunch of liars.

 

[Willtor]

I should like to see if YEC is defensible, and that is why I am asking for objections. What reasons have you that it couldn't have happened?

Observation and experimentation, to start, as has already been addressed. Again, if we talk about the global flood, it is still a flood. It is larger than any other the earth has encountered, but it is still a flood. If it behaves differently than a flood, then science has nothing to say about it.

This sort of thing is the basis for the argument against YEC as a whole. If it happened, either it left evidence or it didn't. If it did, it is within the realm of science to conclude that it did, without reference to the Scriptures. If it didn't, then science has nothing to say on the matter, though it will continue to posit theories on its own.

A lot of arguments have been made relying on observation and experimentation. If both of these are incorrect, then one has two options: 1. YEC is not fact, or 2. YEC supercedes science (at least, at this stage in science).

 

[PaladinValer]

And what trace physical evidence would you look for specifically?

Trees, digging down and examining earthen deposits, ice cores, etc.

Yes, if the earth is 4.5 billion years, and if it began as a molten ball, than you would be correct.

No, always. I'm sorry, but what you are saying is false geology. The Earth has been active since its conception.

It is now, but it may not have been in the past.

The overwhelming evidence shows otherwise.

Sir, if we debate from the point of view that Evolution is 100% fact then we won’t get very far.

I debate based on scientific evidence, not on a presumption (which is, mind you, what you are doing).

If someone says that YEC is wrong because Evolution is right, than we have no room for debate, because such a strong bias leaves nothing for logical discussion.

This is a Straw Man since it is not what I am doing, nor is it what the other TEs here are doing.

What are your objections to young earth creationism as a theory?

It isn't a theory, that's the problem. Its a theological position because there is no science that backs it up.

For something to be science, it must be each of the following:

1. Consistent, both internally and externally.
2. Parimsonious, or sparing in proposed entities or explanations
3. Useful, meaning that it describes and explains observed phenomena.
4. Empirically testable and falsifiable
5. Based on controlled, repeatable experiments
6. Correctable and Dynamic, meaning that the theory can be changed as needed when new data is discovered.
7. Progressive, meaning that it achieves all the previous theories have and more
8. Tentative, meaning that it admits it might not be right rather that asserting certainty

Creationism fails pts 2, both parts of 4, 5, both parts of 6, 7, and 8.

Tentative means not that the idea is wrong, but how it is currently explained is wrong. Just because the current understanding of the theory of evolution might be wrong doesn't equate to evolution being wrong. When new data arrives that forces a change, it doesn't negate the validity of evolution itself, just the current understanding of it.

That is why Creationism is a pseudoscience and it is why, and as someone who knows something of education (ie: educated in education and future teacher), I can speak authoritatively on this, public schools are absolutely prohibited from teaching any sort of Creationism in a science classroom.