Challenge Issued: Arguments for YEC

[Monk Of Reason]

I have read dozens of different YEC vs Evolution threads. I've even participated in quite a few of them. I have never seen a YEC argument even close to convincing. I have watched professional debates and still have not yet yeard a convincing argument.

So I issue the challenge to those that still cling to YEC ideologies. Please provide a coherent argument for YEC. If you can you get bonus points for not mentioning evolution.

 

[Shermana]

First off, in order to provide a "Coherent argument for YEC", it would require a detailed, scientific, technical-laden approach that disproves each claim of the "Science" behind the Old Earth approach.

And then, even then, if I provided some irrefutable concepts that cannot be reconciled with an old earth account in astronomy, biology, geology, oceanography, or whatnot, your defense could be "Some day Science will one day figure this out" even if it outright defies such possibilities.

As for your bonus points, once again, this brings up the issue of theoretical (and oft-semantically abused) "Macroevolution" (Which is in reality, not exactly what is observed except in a technical semantic definition) versus what is actually observed, "Micro" evolution and "Neo Lamarckianism" or Epigenetics.

And if I presented Creationist literature, would you even look at it? Would you even bother to address the claims made in it or would you write it off?

Never mind that 95% of the National Academy of Sciences is made up of declared Atheists, there's obviously no bias in this field of "accepted" science or else you're a "Conspiracy Theorist" if you point this out and question the "authority". Even with all the recent trends of industry-funding in science, when it comes to this particular issue, you can't even possibly question the consensus having a bias and status quo.

So before an argument is even made, what kind of basis would you even accept as something you'd consider as a valid argument?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

First off, in order to provide a "Coherent argument for YEC", it would require a detailed, scientific, technical-laden approach that disproves each claim of the "Science" behind the Old Earth approach.

Generally speaking yes.

And then, even then, if I provided some irrefutable concepts that cannot be reconciled with an old earth account in astronomy, biology, geology, oceanography, or whatnot, your defense could be "Some day Science will one day figure this out" even if it outright defies such possibilities.

If it were irrefutable then I shouldn't logically be able to say that. Unless you are appealing to ignorance in something we obviously don't know yet. In which case "I don't know" is the default answer. Not god. But by all means continue.

As for your bonus points, once again, this brings up the issue of theoretical (and oft-semantically abused) "Macroevolution" (Which is in reality, not exactly what is observed except in a technical semantic definition) versus what is actually observed, "Micro" evolution and "Neo Lamarckianism" or Epigenetics.

As all of the known science indicates evolution as it is taught and epigentics actually plays a role in it I don't see exactly what you mean.

By not mentioning evolution I simply mean can you provide an argument for YEC without attempting to disprove evolution? Is there evidence aside from evidence against evolution (there is none but humor the thought).

And if I presented Creationist literature, would you even look at it? Would you even bother to address the claims made in it or would you write it off?

yes I would read it. I would adress the claim. I don't recall ever simply writing it off. I try to at least give it some dignity. However reading it doesn't mean agreeing with it.

Never mind that 95% of the National Academy of Sciences is made up of declared Atheists, there's obviously no bias in this field of "accepted" science or else you're a "Conspiracy Theorist" if you point this out and question the "authority". Even with all the recent trends of industry-funding in science, when it comes to this particular issue, you can't even possibly question the consensus having a bias and status quo.

I'd like to see the stats behind the 95% declared Atheists. To my knowledge its much much lower. Something like 40%.

However nothing stops christians or other theists from becomming members and contributing.

So before an argument is even made, what kind of basis would you even accept as something you'd consider as a valid argument?

Something that is scientifically tested. Things with evidece that holds up to other evidnece that is already in place.

 

[Shermana]

I'll look for the exact specific study.

The extremely over-rated Neil Degrasse Tyson said it was about 85% when he was demanding to know why 15% of the NAS board don't outright reject God. I think 10% are agnostic. I'll look for the specifics tomorrow.

“I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t. That’s really what we’ve got to address here. Otherwise, the public is secondary to this… Lawrence, if you can’t convert our colleagues, why do you have any hope that you’re going to convert the public?”

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-science-religion-reason-and-survival/session-2-4

See around 40:45.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I'll look for the exact specific study.

The extremely over-rated Neil Degrasse Tyson said it was about 85% when he was demanding to know why 15% of the NAS board don't outright reject God. I think 10% are agnostic. I'll look for the specifics tomorrow.



TSN: Session 2

See around 40:45.

Alright. I've seen him in another video where he claimed they were much much less pervasive in numbers. (lol same guy too) but I don't know if anyone has the exact numbers.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Though a smart guy Neil gets too ramped up when discussing these things and can at times give out some wrong information...which given that he is raging against religion can come off as ironic.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Though a smart guy Neil gets too ramped up when discussing these things and can at times give out some wrong information...which given that he is raging against religion can come off as ironic.

The more ironic thing is that he viciously fights against anyone putting the label "Atheist" on him. He is okay with Agnostic but just barely. Its not really the concept that he hates but its the stigma. Though he is a smart guy. He is a black scientists who supports Republicans because he trusts them to fund science and that the ideology that they tout is simply pandering to the religious right but doesn't actually hold any ground in the laws they pass.

I don't agree with him but he seems to be that kind of man. He doesn't care what the words mean but only the result in the end.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The more ironic thing is that he viciously fights against anyone putting the label "Atheist" on him. He is okay with Agnostic but just barely. Its not really the concept that he hates but its the stigma. Though he is a smart guy. He is a black scientists who supports Republicans because he trusts them to fund science and that the ideology that they tout is simply pandering to the religious right but doesn't actually hold any ground in the laws they pass.

I don't agree with him but he seems to be that kind of man. He doesn't care what the words mean but only the result in the end.

Yeah he does seem like a end justifies the means kinda guy at times. It doesn't appear that either parties give much thought into science, it's more of the business aspect they care about though I guess there are benefits to that.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Oh sorry for being off topic. As for YEC, I don't know how it can hold water with civilizations that date past the traditional 6000 year mark, and plants that are still alive that bypass the 10,000 year mark give or take.....

 

[fantome profane]

Why does this topic always degenerate into personal ad hominem attacks. It doesn't matter what percentage of scientists are atheists. What matters is the quality of the evidence and arguments they put forth. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks personally about Neil Degrasse Tyson. What matters is the quality of the evidence and arguments he puts forth.

Now if anyone wants to try to meet the challenge in the OP that now would be the time. But please don't waste anymore of it talking about personalities.

 

[Windwalker]

Well, to play devil's advocate here. If you consider the earth is around 10 billion years younger than the universe itself is, doesn't this make it young by comparison? Thus, a young earth creation is proven. Problem solved.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I have never seen a YEC argument even close to convincing. I have watched professional debates and still have not yet yeard a convincing argument.

In order to find the arguments convincing, you have to be able to shut down the parts of your brain that deal with reason, logic, and factual information. Unless, and until, you are able to do this, YEC will continue to remain irrational and unconvincing to you. If you are not able to naturally do this, you may want to try ingesting large amounts of alcohol and drugs for an extended period of time, combined with a regimen of bashing your skull against hard objects for an hour a day. Over time, you may do enough damage to your brain, that YEC arguments will start to seem both coherent and convincing to you.

You're welcome.

 

[Shermana]

Now to the OP, you said you are willing to address the Creationist website arguments and postulates without just brushing it off, correct?

Well, then, let's pick one from an example website, such as Answers in Genesis, and go over some of the examples. Some of them do involve some technical data and require a bit of astronomy to understand, but I'm sure we can keep it simple enough for layman's terms.

Young Age Evidence - Answers in Genesis

(There is a LOT more on this website than just this, but I'm using this basic list to get started).

 

[outhouse]

Why does this topic always degenerate into personal ad hominem attacks.

Because of how absurd people become when their minds are closed, it draws the worst out in those who understand credible knowledge and means of reason.

I usually laugh at how far fetched some people are, but every once in bothers me that some people are still this primitive.

 

[idav]

I have read dozens of different YEC vs Evolution threads. I've even participated in quite a few of them. I have never seen a YEC argument even close to convincing. I have watched professional debates and still have not yet yeard a convincing argument.

So I issue the challenge to those that still cling to YEC ideologies. Please provide a coherent argument for YEC. If you can you get bonus points for not mentioning evolution.

The best arguments have to disprove the science and the easiest way is to scream conspiracy any time science comes up with old earth evidence.

 

[Looncall]

Now to the OP, you said you are willing to address the Creationist website arguments and postulates without just brushing it off, correct?

Well, then, let's pick one from an example website, such as Answers in Genesis, and go over some of the examples. Some of them do involve some technical data and require a bit of astronomy to understand, but I'm sure we can keep it simple enough for layman's terms.

Young Age Evidence - Answers in Genesis

(There is a LOT more on this website than just this, but I'm using this basic list to get started).

Ho-hum. The same old crap from the same old gang of notorious liars.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Now to the OP, you said you are willing to address the Creationist website arguments and postulates without just brushing it off, correct?

Well, then, let's pick one from an example website, such as Answers in Genesis, and go over some of the examples. Some of them do involve some technical data and require a bit of astronomy to understand, but I'm sure we can keep it simple enough for layman's terms.

Young Age Evidence - Answers in Genesis

(There is a LOT more on this website than just this, but I'm using this basic list to get started).

Ill go through a few.



The Key to the Age of the Earth - Answers in Genesis
On this one the problem is there isn't any listed evidence. The main resource was simply using Gensis as a refrence. There isn't any scientific or gathered evidence. If they had found tracks of ocean water reciding all the way from Mt.Everest down or Lobster skeletons in the American Midwest that were dated at the time the flood was believed.

Why Shouldn
Much of the same issue. Its not realy a scientific claim but just a lesson for Christians to take the bible more litterally.

Chapter 11: Where Did the Idea of

This is more "lessons". Its mostly just trying to undermine science and falls back on some ad-hominin attacks against secularists.


Feedback: What is the Most Compelling Scientific Evidence of a Young Earth? - Answers in Genesis

This one finally talks at least vaguely on some of the evidence. However all of it is unbacked as far as I could tell. They didn't link to studies or even specific instinces of evidence. Its mostly an appeal to an assumed "common sense". And this article as well falls back on a lot of insults and conspiracy theory without formulating what brought them to that conclusion.

Stating that the naturalistic arguments were created to overthrow the biblical version with pre-created atheistic intentions is unsupported at best.

Also linked to an article that has been debunked dozens of times that states "Dating methods doesn't work".

"lack of erosion" argument was probably the best but they failed to support their argument by showing us why erosion has to be seen in the geographical record. Geology itself states that layers are piled on not taken off. Though its possible for soil to be eroded it doesn't mean that lack of erosion in any specific instince is against the theory as quite the opposite is true.



I could go on but I'll let you prsent the argument as I'm not going to spend hours adressing everything on the site.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Shameless bump

 

[Shermana]

Let's start with this one:

Feedback: What is the Most Compelling Scientific Evidence of a Young Earth? - Answers in Genesis

This one finally talks at least vaguely on some of the evidence. However all of it is unbacked as far as I could tell. They didn't link to studies or even specific instinces of evidence. Its mostly an appeal to an assumed "common sense". And this article as well falls back on a lot of insults and conspiracy theory without formulating what brought them to that conclusion.

Yes, however I wouldn't say its vague. It is referencing books, obviously a sales pitch for them, but I do imagine those books are well sourced that it's referencing, and I'll check those out in a bit. Let's go over each of the talking points that we can, and I will see if I can find an online version which pertains the relevant details and sources.

The radiometric dating methods are based on those same naturalistic, uniformitarian, anti-biblical assumptions and there is plenty of published evidence that they do not give valid dates. Besides the RATE research mentioned earlier, consider the well-researched arguments in The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. You cannot expect this icon of evolution to be overthrown in a few short paragraphs.

I am not entirely familiar with the flaws in the dating methods, but I might even consider buying this book since it's one of the primary corner stones of the Old-Earth arguments and I'd like to see what the specifics are in this regard, though considering its technical nature it may take me a bit to fully be able to use it.

J
The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited).

Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years). The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow.
Soft-sediment deformation—that thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks (of various layers) are bent (like a stack of thin pancakes over the edge of a plate), as we see at the mile-deep Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon. Clearly the whole, mile-deep deposit of various kinds of sediment was still relatively soft and probably wet (not like it is today) when the earthquake occurred that uplifted one part of the series of strata.
Many fossils that show (require) very rapid burial and fossilization. For example, soft parts (jellyfish, animal feces, scales and fins of fish) or whole, large, fully-articulated skeletons (e.g., whales or large dinosaurs such as T-Rex) are preserved. Or we find many creatures’ bodies contorted. All this evidence shows that these creatures were buried rapidly (in many cases even buried alive) and fossilized before scavengers, micro-decay organisms and erosional processes could erase the evidence. These are found all over the world and all through the various strata.

The rock record screaming “Noah’s Flood” and “young earth.” The secular geologists can’t hear or see the message because of their academic indoctrination in anti-biblical, naturalistic, uniformitarian assumptions. The reason that most Christian geologists can’t see it is the same, plus the fact that they have believed the scientific establishment more than the Bible that they claim to believe is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. There are also thoroughly researched scientific refutations of skeptical objections to Noah’s Ark and the Flood here, which strengthen one’s faith in the biblical account of the Flood.

 

[McBell]

The rock record screaming “Noah’s Flood” and “young earth.” The secular geologists can’t hear or see the message because of their academic indoctrination in anti-biblical, naturalistic, uniformitarian assumptions. The reason that most Christian geologists can’t see it is the same, plus the fact that they have believed the scientific establishment more than the Bible that they claim to believe is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. There are also thoroughly researched scientific refutations of skeptical objections to Noah’s Ark and the Flood here, which strengthen one’s faith in the biblical account of the Flood.

This is nothing more than an accusation.
In fact, it is nothing more than the author saying "you are wrong because what you think does not agree with what I think the Bible says."