show me 1 piece of scientific evidence for the YEC model

[philadiddle]

first, i need to lay some ground rules. please post only 1 piece of evidence. the post must be in your own words, with references. the reason for this is that i tried a thread like this before, and someone cut and paste dozens of "evidences" from AiG. This means they had to do no work at all and i have the daunting task of going through dozens of points and refuting them. if we do this it becomes a cut and past war.

so, please let me know one evidence you have for the Young Earth Creation Model. thx

 

[Silent Bob]

Since we come from monkeys, why are there still rocks?

 

[Gwenyfur]

There are vertical petrified trees all over the world...and not just what type of tree you would expect to find in that climate area. There are vertical petrified trees that go from one coal seam up through several feet of solid rock and then into another coal seam. Yellowstone has thousands of vertical petrified trees. A mixed buch of not only pine and ash, but also fig and breadfruit trees.
All of which points to a young earth which suffered a global flood.

http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_08/08cc_091-095.htm

 

[Dannager]

There are vertical petrified trees all over the world...and not just what type of tree you would expect to find in that climate area. There are vertical petrified trees that go from one coal seam up through several feet of solid rock and then into another coal seam. Yellowstone has thousands of vertical petrified trees. A mixed buch of not only pine and ash, but also fig and breadfruit trees.
All of which points to a young earth which suffered a global flood.

http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_08/08cc_091-095.htm

This evidence has been refuted many times over. For refutations, see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC332.html, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC332_1.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC332_2.html.

What it boils down to is that the bits of information used to support this claim are compiled out of context and are missing some very vital pieces that invalidate the claim (such as the trees showing evidence of dying at different periods, disproving a single event as the cause, or some of the trees growing in place that were not transported). This is an example of creationists locating evidence which, presented selectively and piecemeal, sounds scientifically plausible enough to those with the expertise and original published material to formulate any kind of rational examination of the claim.

 

[Gwenyfur]

This evidence has been refuted many times over. For refutations, see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC332.html, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC332_1.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC332_2.html.

What it boils down to is that the bits of information used to support this claim are compiled out of context and are missing some very vital pieces that invalidate the claim (such as the trees showing evidence of dying at different periods, disproving a single event as the cause, or some of the trees growing in place that were not transported). This is an example of creationists locating evidence which, presented selectively and piecemeal, sounds scientifically plausible enough to those with the expertise and original published material to formulate any kind of rational examination of the claim.

How nice of you to stick to the purpose of the OP and the thread...

 

[Dannager]

How nice of you to stick to the purpose of the OP and the thread...

Forgive me, but I was under the impression that the purpose of this thread is to debate single issues brought up by creationists. You can feel free to ask philadiddle yourself, but I'm pretty sure his intention was to create this thread with the ground rules that only one evidence against evolution would be proposed at a time so that refutations could be handled reasonably, without having to respond simultaneously to dozens of completely unconnected evidences.

So are you going to respond to the refutation I offered?

 

[Windmill]

first, i need to lay some ground rules. please post only 1 piece of evidence. the post must be in your own words, with references. the reason for this is that i tried a thread like this before, and someone cut and paste dozens of "evidences" from AiG. This means they had to do no work at all and i have the daunting task of going through dozens of points and refuting them. if we do this it becomes a cut and past war.

so, please let me know one evidence you have for the Young Earth Creation Model. thx

Evidence?

Basically, give us evidence that doesn't support our model.

Our evidence is the bible. The bible tells that we were created, and the earth is young

Basically, our evidence is the same as you guys. We just interpret it differently.

I suppose "evidence" could be, that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Another would be things like these rocks which I could link you to which require being created in an instant.

 

[Dannager]

I suppose "evidence" could be, that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

This is false. Matter can be both created and destroyed. Why are you claiming that it cannot? Who has taught you that it cannot be created or destroyed? Most importantly, why do you believe this is evidence in favor of young earth creationism?

Another would be things like these rocks which I could link you to which require being created in an instant.

Please link me to them. I'm not familiar with any such material.

 

[chaoschristian]

The bible tells that we were created,

Correct, scripture reveals that we are the creations of God's divine will. It does not, however, tell us how He created us.

and the earth is young

Please provide one passage from scripture that directly references the age of the planet Earth.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Forgive me, but I was under the impression that the purpose of this thread is to debate single issues brought up by creationists. You can feel free to ask philadiddle yourself, but I'm pretty sure his intention was to create this thread with the ground rules that only one evidence against evolution would be proposed at a time so that refutations could be handled reasonably, without having to respond simultaneously to dozens of completely unconnected evidences.

So are you going to respond to the refutation I offered?

a tree does not grow through coal, then solid rock, then more coal in an attempt to get to sunlight so it can grow....hogwash

I suppose you will also say that the vertical trees already buried in *feet* of sediment and partially petrified already at the bottom of spirit lake aren't proof of this at all...which by the way, they are in varied depths and in varying stages of petrification... so....they also give the appearance of being "planted" at different time periods in the last 30+ years...

Some of the trees having grown in place doesn't prove they all did

 

[notto]

a tree does not grow through coal, then solid rock, then more coal in an attempt to get to sunlight so it can grow....hogwash

Strawman - nobody is saying that they do.

I suppose you will also say that the vertical trees already buried in *feet* of sediment and partially petrified already at the bottom of spirit lake aren't proof of this at all...which by the way, they are in varied depths and in varying stages of petrification... so....they also give the appearance of being "planted" at different time periods in the last 30+ years...

And they will continue to be surrounded by layers of sediment for many hundreds of years. The same process that is responsible for those trees in the fossil record.

Some of the trees having grown in place doesn't prove they all did

But it only takes one being shown that it did to lay waste to the YEC model of their position. That is how falsification works. Add to that things like footprints in in the coal seams and tree root and soil systems in coal seams and it becomes obvious to anyone who looks at the evidence objectively that a flood is not responsible for their position.

 

[Gwenyfur]

how then do you explain that footprint being found on the "ceiling" of the mine?

and how does 1 single or even a few trees disprove hundreds of thousands across the face of the planet. Logic would say the scales are rather heavy for creation that being the case...

 

[notto]

how then do you explain that footprint being found on the "ceiling" of the mine?

The 'ceilinig' was at one point the top of a peat bog and later more sediment (probably due to seasonal flooding) covered it. Over time, the bog becomes peat which becomes coal. Rather simple really. Certainly can't be explained by any single worldwide flood scenario. You just refuted YEC.

I've never seen a creationist answer the following when asked about these footprints. Is the sediment under them pre or post flood? How about the sediment on top of the footprints? Pre or post flood?

It only takes one piece of falsifying evidence to make something falsified. That is how science works. It doesn't matter how many piece of evidence can be found that appear to support a young earth. If there is one piece that doesn't, the idea is falsified. Since there are several independent lines of evidence that put the lower limit on the age of the earth well outside of the timeframe of YEC, it is considered falsified. This was determined years ago by Christians who investigated geology.

 

[Dannager]

and how does 1 single or even a few trees disprove hundreds of thousands across the face of the planet.

It doesn't need to disprove anything but young earth creationism, and it did. One falsification is all that is ever needed to show a theory to be wrong. Your falsification is there. You have been shown it. You have tried to defend your theory but have failed - twice. What are you going to do now, Gwenyfur?

 

[Numenor]

You have been shown it. You have tried to defend your theory but have failed - twice. What are you going to do now, Gwenyfur?

Rinse and repeat.

 

[Dannager]

Rinse and repeat.

Now, now. Let's give her a chance to show us her decision before passing judgment ourselves, likely or not.

 

[muaxiong]

This is false. Matter can be both created and destroyed. Most importantly, why do you believe this is evidence in favor of young earth creationism?

If I remember correctly the laws of the conservation of matter and energy in a nutshell states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed only changed from one form into another. This however isn’t entirely accurate, what I think he probably meant was something along the lines of what Einstein points out that the universe's total matter plus energy is at a constant where one can convert matter to energy and vice versa but neither can be totally obliterated or be created from nothing.

What makes this relevant to creationism (not necessarily to a young earth) is that at some point matter and energy came into existence. One can conclude that there are only two options - either it came into existence from nothing on its own or that it was brought it into existence by God. Even if matter can be accounted for without supernatural intervention (which I think is unlikely) matter alone contains no hidden concepts or direction in order to convert into life, a pile of rocks will always remain a pile or rocks without ever becoming anything more complex even if rain falls on it for a million years - well maybe dust which is something but not life.

Which brings us to the existence of has been termed CSI by ID proponents. In biology CSI is better know as DNA, the blue print of life. In an information driven age it is something which I think will render Darwinian evolution untenable the more we discover about the working of dna and its relation to information theory. Anyway I don’t really know enough about CSI or information theory to make a solid argument at this time but maybe other creationists here can.

 

[chaoschristian]

I'm not big on physics, but if I recall correctly, wasn't Einstein's steady state conceptualization of the universe refuted.

And if I recall correctly, doesn't the Big Bang Theory start with the assumption that the, whatever it was, - the kernel of the universe - existed prior to being Jiffy-popped? I thought BBT dealth with why the universe looks the way it does, not necessarily where everything came from, ex nihilo or otherwise.

 

[Athene]

Why would polystrate fossils be 'evidence' for a young earth?

 

[LoG]

Creationist evidence: Life exists in exactly the way God said He created it 6000 years ago. (A) it exists which is a statistical impossibility in coming about in any other way. (B) from generation to generation it repeats after its kind, as He said it would.