Evidence for and against young earth creationism.

[Cobol]

The Branches of science you would have to ignore for young earth creationism are numerous—containing practically all of known science—but most notably these sciences are Biology, palaeontology, astronomy, geology, archeology, dendrochronology, and physics. All of these sciences demolish young earth creationism.

For young earth creationism to be true, each of these fields of science would have to be incorrect about almost everything. You can't argue with science.

 

[Jose Fly]

Christian Scientists at BioLogos critique a film by young-earth creationists....

A Geological Response to the Movie “Is Genesis History?”

IMO they're far too nice to the YEC's.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Christian Scientists at BioLogos critique a film by young-earth creationists....

A Geological Response to the Movie “Is Genesis History?”

IMO they're far too nice to the YEC's.

Not a question of nice or not nice.

 

[Sonofason]

The evidence against young earth creationism is the people who invest their lives finding out about natural history, such as the Anthropologists. Like anyone else they would not waste their time if they did not see reason in it. It would be like an army of chefs wanting to make bad tasting food.

Yes, we all have reasons to do what we do. Sometimes we do things for the wrong reasons. And it is easy to reach false conclusions from false premises. If it were an army of bad chefs incapable of making good food, it makes perfect sense that they might try to sell their bad food to those that never actually tasted good food.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yes, we all have reasons to do what we do. Sometimes we do things for the wrong reasons. And it is easy to reach false conclusions from false premises. If it were an army of bad chefs incapable of making good food, it makes perfect sense that they might try to sell their bad food to those that never actually tasted good food.

Which is merely denouncing all Scientists. Genesis does not describe the creation of the planet Earth. If you think it does then you should be denouncing the Earth for not conforming to it. Scientists merely describe what they see.

 

[Sonofason]

Which is merely denouncing all Scientists. Genesis does not describe the creation of the planet Earth. If you think it does then you should be denouncing the Earth for not conforming to it. Scientists merely describe what they see.

Yes, and sometimes scientists find ways to describe things they can't see.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yes, and sometimes scientists find ways to describe things they can't see.

Scientists have to be able to read a lot of information quickly, so usually its someone in a university. A Scientist is usually a professor in a university, a graduate student or a fellow. Once in a while an individual will do research on their own and publish. I think most pure research happens on university property. There are also researchers who work for companies, but they are mostly focused on developing products and not on pure research. There are scientists who work for governments, too; and they range from people who test things like food or soil to people who do research on diseases. Very often a company that wants some research done will work with a university to provide research services. In that case the research paid for will be less pure research and more focused; but pure research is important. Pure research is tedious and does not necessarily produce anything useful. It often just eliminates possibilities, one by one; it looks for anything unusual or inexplicable. Pure research is all about finding things that have not been explained, categorizing them and then trying to learn about them. University libraries have lots of dusty books full of research that is largely unheard of, just stuff that only heavy readers ever know. There are also millions of journal articles that never get read, because they are not about anything new or exciting. They are just interesting to people in certain fields who like to read. You might say they are boring to most people but not to certain people.

 

[Sonofason]

Scientists have to be able to read a lot of information quickly, so usually its someone in a university. A Scientist is usually a professor in a university, a graduate student or a fellow. Once in a while an individual will do research on their own and publish. I think most pure research happens on university property. There are also researchers who work for companies, but they are mostly focused on developing products and not on pure research. There are scientists who work for governments, too; and they range from people who test things like food or soil to people who do research on diseases. Very often a company that wants some research done will work with a university to provide research services. In that case the research paid for will be less pure research and more focused; but pure research is important. Pure research is tedious and does not necessarily produce anything useful. It often just eliminates possibilities, one by one; it looks for anything unusual or inexplicable. Pure research is all about finding things that have not been explained, categorizing them and then trying to learn about them.

Yes, it would be important to them that we believe this.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yes, it would be important to them that we believe this.

Not really. A lot of people believe in UFO's and alien conspiracies and things like that and all kinds of things. What matters to them is what other scientists think of them.

 

[gnostic]

I am still waiting for creationists to present their evidences for YEC to being true.