Support for YEC

[Dayton]

I am new here and I am looking for somke scientific support for young-earth creationism. I have Biblical support for it, but no scientific evidence. I am not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination (politics is more my thing) so please don't get into all the the technical, scientific words.

 

[Sinai]

I am new here and I am looking for somke scientific support for young-earth creationism. I have Biblical support for it, but no scientific evidence. I am not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination (politics is more my thing) so please don't get into all the the technical, scientific words.

I suggest that you read the threads both in this forum (which is supposed to be for Christians only) and also in the Open Discussion & Debate: Science, Creation & Evolution thread: http://christianforums.com/f70 (which is open to both Christians and non-Christians). The responses you encounter as a YEC (young-earth creationist) will probably tend to be a bit kinder on the Christian forum.

Of the YEC websites, Answers in Genesis is probably about as good as any and tends to avoid many of the arguments that would be more likely to cause you to be especially embarrassed. Again, read through the threads on these forums and you will be way ahead of most of the YECs. Before you rely too much on either the YEC "scientific" arguments or their "Biblical support" for it, you may also wish to study the Hebrew texts (or at least unbiased commentaries on them) to see what the Bible may actually be saying.....

By the way, Answers in Genesis can be found here.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

The arguments AiG is promoting now will be the ones that will get you embarrassed tomorrow. This is the way YEC works - remember in First Contact when the Enterprise crew were fighting the Borg?

They only got one or two shots, because after that the Borg adjusted their shields to deflect the phasors. YEC arguments are the same. Mainstream science soon provides answers to them and so the YECs have to abandon them and find new ones. And so it goes on.

Your search for scientific support for the YEC position will be fruitless. There is none. This is because the Earth is old, it looks old, it tests old.

 

[lucaspa]

I am new here and I am looking for somke scientific support for young-earth creationism. I have Biblical support for it, but no scientific evidence. I am not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination (politics is more my thing) so please don't get into all the the technical, scientific words.

Dayton, science falsifies. That is, it shows ideas to be wrong. See the quote from Karl Popper at the end of the post. One thing Popper noted was that you can ALWAYS find evidence in support of a theory, if that is what you are looking for. Therefore, what really counts is the evidence that falsifies a theory.

YEC was THE accepted scientific theory in the period ~1700-1831. It was shown to be false. The evidence that falsified it then is still around. All the supporting evidence in the world won't help YEC because of the evidence that has already shown it to be false.

See The Biblical Flood by Davis A. Young ( an evangelical Christian and a geologist) and Genesis and Geology by Gillespie. They will take you thru the falsification of YEC.

"1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory -- if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions.
3. Every 'good' scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it.
5. Confirming evidence should not count *except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory:* and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. [emphasis Popper's]
"I thought that scientific theories were not the digest of observations, but that they were inventions -- conjectures boldly put forward for trial, to be eliminated if they clashed with observations, with observations which were rarely accidental but as a rule undertaken with the definite intention of testing a theory by obtaining, if possible, a decisive refutation."

 

[Crusadar]

In the debate of creation and evolution I have made clear as to my stand on the word of God. The Bible is the inspired word of God and cannot be compromised in any way or we risk losing our portion in God’s kingdom. We are either for God or against Him. There is no middle ground where one can lollygag in hopes of finding the right answer. There is only one right answer, and I am sure many Christians will agree it is not in any theory but in our personal walk with JC. Faith in God does not rest on creationism or evolution being proven or disproved. The only answer is the Lord Jesus Christ. Until JC rules your heart – you will not see the truth of God’s love. For what one uses to rationalize ones faith is determined by the presence of JC in their lives, and it is His presence that has revealed to me that the God of the Bible is not a god of an old earth but one of infinite love and mercy.

 

[Jet Black]

I am new here and I am looking for somke scientific support for young-earth creationism. I have Biblical support for it, but no scientific evidence.

that's because there isn't any.

 

[Serapha]

Hello Dayton,


I posted on the other science forum today a statement about archaeology and was told that archaeology didn't fit "their" definition.

My statement was this....

When conducting archaeological digs, when you remove the strata layer by layer, and you get to the 6,000 year chronology, you find "virgin dirt".

I was immediately corrected that in China there is an archaeological dig that dates to 7,000 BCE.

<grin>

So.... why is there only "virgin dirt" before 7,000 BCE???

I can accept that there was a compression of geneologies in the Bible (Acts 7:4, Gen 12:4) that forced the date of creation to fit a time of 4004 BCE and expand that time by a few centuries....

So, why is there "virgin dirt" before 7,000 BCE?





~malaka~

 

[Serapha]

Dayton,

And perhaps, I should explain "virgin dirt"....

Virgin dirt is the strata level where there are no longer any signs of interruption in the soil, such as human artifacts such as pottery or human bones.

~malaka~