YEC's, answer this...

[philadiddle]

What is 1 single piece of scientific evidence supporting your claims of a young earth? In the "6000 Year Earth" thread there is a lot of talk about evidence supporting a young earth, but no scientific evidence is ever posted (at least not that i read, i skimmed some of the thread). There is a lot of misinterpretation of scripture, but that isn't scientific evidence that what u say happens. So please enlighten us all and post a single piece of scientific evidence supporting your young earth view.

The reason i ask for 1 evidence is so we can discuss it. Information bombs (listing loads of evidences from YEC sites) are not a reasonable way to go on this forum. Information bombing is posting so much stuff that no one will bother to reply, because it's all been talked about before.

 

[jeffweeder]

Well i am going to post from internet sites, as it saves me time typing..
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991
http://www.swcp.com/creation/resources/young_html/index.htm

scripturely
For the[25][Lit just as...were the days ] coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.
http://www.christianforums.com/38 "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
http://www.christianforums.com/39 and they did not understand[26][Lit know ] until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit[14][Or Spirit ];
http://www.christianforums.com/19 in which[15][Or whom ] also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
http://www.christianforums.com/20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water[16][I.e. the great flood].
http://www.christianforums.com/21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for[17][Or from ] a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

;
http://www.christianforums.com/5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher[1][Or herald ] of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

http://www.christianforums.com/9 "For this[5][Some mss read the waters of Noah this is to Me ] is like the days of Noah to Me,
When I swore that the waters of Noah
Would not flood[6][Lit cross over ] the earth again;
So I have sworn that I will not be angry with you
Nor will I rebuke you.
http://www.christianforums.com/10 "For the mountains may be removed and the hills may shake,
But My lovingkindness will not be removed from you,
And My covenant of peace will not be shaken,"
Says the LORD who has compassion on you.



For when[1][Or they are willfully ignorant of this fact, that ] they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,
http://www.christianforums.com/6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.
http://www.christianforums.com/7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.


There's no myth about God judging this world a second time , but this time by fire.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i don't believe that there is any legitimate evidence for a young earth, i've read lots of YECist books and have never seen any that was not simply wrong but i try to listen to the evidence knowing people have been wrong in the past and much of what i think is scientific evidence is partial wrong. so i would encourage a thread with this offer to read whatever scientific evidence they have.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Well i am going to post from internet sites, as it saves me time typing..
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991
http://www.swcp.com/creation/resources/young_html/index.htm

So pick a piece of evidence from those web pages that you have put some serious effort into confirming the truth of.

There's no myth about God judging this world a second time , but this time by fire.

And how do you think those who spread gross misinformation will be dealt with at that time?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Well i am going to post from internet sites, as it saves me time typing..
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

That web site quotes from The Truth: God or Evolution?, Marshall and Sandra Hall.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part3.html describes a scientific creationism conference:

Marshall and Sandra Hall (authors of the widely distributed book, The Truth: God or Evolution?) got up together to give one talk[]they had explained that the heliocentric theory was a "Satanic counterfeit,"

So, are you a supporter of geocentrism? It is afterall, a literalist position.

 

[philadiddle]

Well i am going to post from internet sites, as it saves me time typing..
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991
http://www.swcp.com/creation/resources/young_html/index.htm

scripturely
For the[25][Lit just as...were the days ] coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.
38 "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
39 and they did not understand[26][Lit know ] until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit[14][Or Spirit ];
19 in which[15][Or whom ] also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water[16][I.e. the great flood].
21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for[17][Or from ] a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

;
5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher[1][Or herald ] of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

9 "For this[5][Some mss read the waters of Noah this is to Me ] is like the days of Noah to Me,
When I swore that the waters of Noah
Would not flood[6][Lit cross over ] the earth again;
So I have sworn that I will not be angry with you
Nor will I rebuke you.
10 "For the mountains may be removed and the hills may shake,
But My lovingkindness will not be removed from you,
And My covenant of peace will not be shaken,"
Says the LORD who has compassion on you.



For when[1][Or they are willfully ignorant of this fact, that ] they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,
6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.
7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.


There's no myth about God judging this world a second time , but this time by fire.

this is what i meant by an information bomb. You simply cut and paste, or directly link to a large amount of information. This requires no effort on your part but not many ppl here are willing to put in the time to pick it all apart to refute it. Since it requires no effort on your part and lots of effort on my part, it would appear that since i don't respond to it all you've made a point of some kind. It's a pretty bad way to start a debate.

I'll ask again, in your own words, with references, post 1 scientific evidence supporting a 6000ish year old earth.

p.s. Scripture is not scientific evidence.

 

[Assyrian]

p.s. Scripture is not scientific evidence.

Nor are the verses quoted even relevant.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Nor are the verses quoted even relevant.

I am guessing that he was hoping to browbeat us into submission with the fear of damnation if we don't accept his interpretation of the Bible.

 

[jeffweeder]

So pick a piece of evidence from those web pages that you have put some serious effort into confirming the truth of.

Hmmm which one first ? Gee there all good- eenie meanie miney mo-

N.A. Rupke was the scientist who first coined the term “polystrate fossils.” After citing numerous examples of such fossils (1973, pp. 152-157), he wrote: “Nowadays, most geologists uphold a uniform process of sedimentation during the earth’s history; but their views are contradicted by plain facts” (p. 157, emp. added). Contradicted by plain facts indeed! Truth be told, polystrate fossils testify loudly to a young Earth whose layers formed rapidly—and not very long ago! Trees, reeds, catfish, whales, and the many other organisms with which the fossil record abounds did not die and lie around for hundreds, thousands, or millions of years while slowly being turned into polystrate fossils. Such fossils provide clear and compelling evidence that the Earth is quite young, not ancient as evolutionists insist.
Dr. Helmick, how dare you imply that our geology textbooks and uniformitarian theories could possibly be wrong! Everybody knows that diatomaceous earth beds are built up slowly over millions of years as diatom skeletons slowly settle out on the ocean floor. The baleen whale simply stood on its tail for 100,000 years, its skeleton decomposing, while the diatomaceous snow covered its frame millimeter by millimeter. Certainly you wouldn’t expect intelligent and informed establishment scientists of this modern age to revert to the outmoded views of our forefathers just to explain such finds! (1977, 55[12]:4, emp. added).

How did these things not decompose if they took thousands/millions of years to be fossilised? For things to fossilise properly they need to be buried quickly, so if you find trees through 3 strata, this suggests the strata was laid down quickly too. There's no way that whale could stand on its tail, unless it was buried quickly.

They have begun the process of rewriting the text books, due to the new technology that showed Britian seperated from france in 24hrs.- Through a flood of Biblical proportions. So long ages of erosion have been shown to be false-again.- .http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/25/nflood25.xml

 

[rmwilliamsll]

first, what is the context of:
“Nowadays, most geologists uphold a uniform process of sedimentation during the earth’s history; but their views are contradicted by plain facts”

the only hit for the sentence online is:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/184

there are footnotes embedded in the article quoted pointing to:
Rupke, N.A. (1973), “Prolegomena to a Study of Cataclysmal Sedimentation,” Why Not Creation, ed. Walter E. Lammerts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

I believe i read this book years ago, i'll have to get into my library tomorrow after church.

online searches don't yield the context so that is currently a dead end.

so what are polystrate fossils?
not that i don't already know, i've been through this before.

from: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=78&m=19

As far as polystrate fossils are concerned, go read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate.html ,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html ,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/polystrate_trees.html ,
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/polystrate_trees.html ,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/yellowstone.html , and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/dawson_tree2.html .


so, if you would kindly supply the context for the single sentence from Rupke that would be helpful.
just the page or a paragraph before and after would be useful. the whole thing is apparently not online.

then read the faq's so we are all on the same page with a basic knowledge of polystrate fossils. then we can discuss the issue from a basic information background.

notes:
the whale story is refutted at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html

 

[philadiddle]

huh, last time i made a thread like this the only evidence offered was polystrate fossils, and it was refuted. I can't wait for some more responses with some different evidences

 

[jeffweeder]

How can you refute strata fossils that go through 2-3 layers of strata? either part of it would fossilise and the rest rot away , -if they took looong ages to form , -or, the sedimentary stratas were all laid down quickly-through a flood of course, which is why the whole object is fossiled.
For things to fossilise in the first place, they have to be buried fairly quick, by watery sediment.


Explain the hydrogen one in the apologetics link, or the helium.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

How can you refute strata fossils that go through 2-3 layers of strata? either part of it would fossilise and the rest rot away , -if they took looong ages to form , -or, the sedimentary stratas were all laid down quickly-through a flood of course, which is why the whole object is fossiled.
For things to fossilise in the first place, they have to be buried fairly quick, by watery sediment.

Indeed. And once fossilised, may be exposed by weathering and then recovered by later sediment layers.

Do you have any specific examples of polystrate fossils you would like addressed in particular?

 

[Mallon]

N.A. Rupke was the scientist who first coined the term “polystrate fossils.”...

Rupke's probably not the best creationist to quote. He may have coined the term "polystrate fossil", but he has also become a TE since his days as a student under Morris. Like so many of us, his continued education in the sciences led him away from a YEC interpretation of Genesis.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Rupke's probably not the best creationist to quote. He may have coined the term "polystrate fossil", but he has also become a TE since his days as a student under Morris. Like so many of us, his continued education in the sciences led him away from a YEC interpretation of Genesis.

I was unaware of this change.
i found 3 or 4 online references to it, but all in discussion boards. does anyone have a reference that Rupke wrote that he is no longer a YEC?
he is a philosopher of science specializing in geology and has written several widely quoted books. worth following up if we can find more information or if someone has his books.

 

[Assyrian]

And once fossilised, may be exposed by weathering and then recovered by later sediment layers.

Or the tree was alive as successive floods laid down layers of sediment. You get polystrate trees where the tree has grown roots up into each layer of sediment. Pretty hard to do in underneath a global flood.

Again geology has no problem with some strata being laid down in quick succession. It is a creationist straw man that says everything is supposed to happen slowly in geology. One geological feature being formed rapidly does not mean it all was. Volcanic ash can form deep layers very quickly. It doesn't mean varves or the White Cliffs of Dover could also form rapidly.

I was shocked when I read the hydrogen claim in apologetic press the argument is so bad.

HYDROGEN IN THE UNIVERSE​

Hydrogen constantly is being converted into helium throughout the Universe. Significantly, however, hydrogen cannot be produced in any significant quantity through the conversion of other elements. If the Universe were vastly old, there should now be little hydrogen left in it—since hydrogen constantly is being converted into helium, and since this conversion is a one-way process.

Sir Fred Hoyle, the eminent British astronomer/cosmologist, has noted, however, that “the universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen.” Dr. Hoyle, therefore, was driven to conclude: “How comes it then that the universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen? If matter was infinitely old, this would be quite impossible. So we can see that the universe being what it is, the creation issue simply cannot be dodged” (1960, p. 125, emp. added).

Because of the evidence from the hydrogen in the Universe, Dr. Hoyle developed his “continuous-creation” hypothesis. Even agnostic Bertrand Russell recognized the force of this kind of evidence (which indicated a contingent Universe), and admitted the implication was that matter could not be infinitely old because the Cosmos would had to have had a beginning (1931, p. 122). The conclusion—since the Universe consists chiefly of hydrogen, and since there is no evidence of any kind of current hydrogen genesis—is that the concentration of hydrogen speaks eloquently of a young Universe.

This is arguing against Hoyle's Steady State cosmology which was replaced by the Big Bang way back in the 60's. Why apologetic press would quote a philosopher writing in 1931 to refute a physicist writing in 1948 I cannot understand. But the biggest blunder is to use an argument against out of date cosmology that is simply irrelevant with the Big Bang.

There is also the sheer non sequitur of saying because the universe can't be infinitely old, then it must be young. Sorry that simply does not follow. 14.7 billion years would still leave loads of hydrogen.

Originally published in Reason & Revelation, January 1982, 2[1]:1-3. Revised 2001.

The argument was out well of date in 1982, but they still keep it in when they revised it all in 2001??!!

 

[Pats]

i don't believe that there is any legitimate evidence for a young earth, i've read lots of YECist books and have never seen any that was not simply wrong but i try to listen to the evidence knowing people have been wrong in the past and much of what i think is scientific evidence is partial wrong. so i would encourage a thread with this offer to read whatever scientific evidence they have.

That is the line of thinking that has helped me the most, yet, I would not have articulated it the same.

Coming from a very YEC background with little scientific training, I find it most helpful for me to blend what the scientific experts say with theology and in that blend try to find an answer I can live with.

Guess it's the way I marry together all my faith and love in the Lord with my skeptisicm.

 

[Mallon]

I was unaware of this change.
i found 3 or 4 online references to it, but all in discussion boards. does anyone have a reference that Rupke wrote that he is no longer a YEC?
he is a philosopher of science specializing in geology and has written several widely quoted books. worth following up if we can find more information or if someone has his books.

I've only come across mention of Rupke's abandonment of YECism in Numbers' The Creationists. A great read, if you haven't yet done so.

 

[HisWordIsMySword]

What is 1 single piece of scientific evidence supporting your claims of a young earth? In the "6000 Year Earth" thread there is a lot of talk about evidence supporting a young earth, but no scientific evidence is ever posted (at least not that i read, i skimmed some of the thread). There is a lot of misinterpretation of scripture, but that isn't scientific evidence that what u say happens. So please enlighten us all and post a single piece of scientific evidence supporting your young earth view.

The reason i ask for 1 evidence is so we can discuss it. Information bombs (listing loads of evidences from YEC sites) are not a reasonable way to go on this forum. Information bombing is posting so much stuff that no one will bother to reply, because it's all been talked about before.

Now, when you say misuse of scripture. This is according to whom? And if I may ask, which bible translation?

How can you argue with fact. And are we not given from on High, a dose of common sense. Is one plus one equal to two? That is how the Word of God is understood. Mankind is who complicates God, not God.

This verse alone speaks for itself. And it is proof without doubt that there was water above the atmosphere or firmament. I would have to sit and give a basic bible lessen as to the different firmaments or heavens spoken of in scripture. Instead, I will give the quick lesson. There are 3. Our atmosphere, outerspace and the heaven our Father resides within. Please don't take this as being smug, for I am not. And forgive me if I come across this way. I don't mean to. It just saddens me that this little is understood of God's Holy Writ.

Gen. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.



How can you argue with this. It says there was water above the firmament. And if you study the rest of Genesis, you discover that there was not rain in the days prior to the flood. The lands were watered by a mist the rose from off the earth. If you disagree with this, you won't agree with anything else. And discussion any further on the subject is useless because you already have your mind made up.

 

[Mallon]

And are we not given from on High, a dose of common sense.

Instead, I will give the quick lesson. There are 3. Our atmosphere, outerspace and the heaven our Father resides within.

Where does the Bible speak of three firmaments?