Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

drj11 -> Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/19/2008 4:35:04 PM)

My old Young Earth thread pretty much went unanswered, but I will give this another go. It has been asserted again and again there is evidence for young earth creationism in thread after thread on this forum. Here's your chance (again), to make your case....

Here are a few ground rules, just to make sure we get a quality discussion:

  • Present the absolute best scientific evidence you know of that supports 6 day creation (or some variant of YEC). You have slam dunk evidence of a young earth? Show it here.
  • Please be able to expound upon and discuss any evidence you preset... no deluge of factoids from a lengthy copied and pasted list. If you want to use info from such a list, fine, but just pick one or two arguments that you feel are the absolute best and be prepared to support and discuss them.
  • This is about science, not theology/philosophy. Present objective scientific evidence. Even the most religious among us should realize that Bible quotes arent considered scientific evidence. Lets keep it objective and scientific.



    • DanJames -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/20/2008 12:57:38 PM)

    Before we begin, I want to praise drj11 for a great OP. A discussion like this could take years to hash over. One or two topics at most should be the goal.



    Method -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/20/2008 2:00:35 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: DanJames

    Before we begin, I want to praise drj11 for a great OP. A discussion like this could take years to hash over. One or two topics at most should be the goal.


    I agree with that. Perhaps the first page or so should be reserved for deciding which one or two arguments will be put forth for the rest of the thread. Does that sound good?



    drj11 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/20/2008 4:38:11 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Method

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: DanJames

    Before we begin, I want to praise drj11 for a great OP. A discussion like this could take years to hash over. One or two topics at most should be the goal.


    I agree with that. Perhaps the first page or so should be reserved for deciding which one or two arguments will be put forth for the rest of the thread. Does that sound good?


    Thats fine with me... the discussion will eventually meander as they do.. lets just try and keep it to one or two big issues at a time.



    drmark -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/21/2008 8:44:21 AM)

    The only big issue to discuss is whose assumptions and interpretations of the evidence will we agree with. This thread will soon be meaningless because uniformitarian naturalists already have their minds made up just as much as YECs are alleged to have their minds made up. So, it always comes down to a shouting match about "my scientists are better than your scientists". Frankly, I have more important things to do with my time.



    gluadys -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/21/2008 9:04:23 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: drmark

    The only big issue to discuss is whose assumptions and interpretations of the evidence will we agree with. This thread will soon be meaningless because uniformitarian naturalists already have their minds made up just as much as YECs are alleged to have their minds made up. So, it always comes down to a shouting match about "my scientists are better than your scientists". Frankly, I have more important things to do with my time.



    My basic assumption is that God created a real world. Not a hologram or Matrix-style world to deceive the senses.

    Are you willing to accept that assumption?



    drmark -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/21/2008 9:21:13 AM)

    My basic assumption is that true knowledge, hence scientific facts, can only be determined by reliance on God's Word. Not man-made theories or humanist dogma.

    Are you willing to accept that assumption?



    essentialsaltes -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/21/2008 10:35:44 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: drmark

    My basic assumption is that true knowledge, hence scientific facts, can only be determined by reliance on God's Word. Not man-made theories or humanist dogma.

    Are you willing to accept that assumption?


    This fails drj11's third requirement for this thread:

    quote:

    This is about science, not theology/philosophy. Present objective scientific evidence. Even the most religious among us should realize that Bible quotes arent considered scientific evidence. Lets keep it objective and scientific.



    drmark -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/21/2008 10:42:53 AM)

    quote:

    This fails drj11's third requirement for this thread:
    Well, es, that's the exact reason this thread is doomed to failure. You (and drj) fail to acknowledge and/or accept that origins science is non-observational, thus untestable, unrepeatable, and unfalsifiable. So it's really not about evidence at all, but rather the assumptions and interpretations that lead to differing conclusions. The age of the earth is ALWAYS about "theology/philosophy" but uniformitarian naturalists are incapable of admitting it!



    drj11 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/21/2008 11:18:47 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: drmark

    quote:

    This fails drj11's third requirement for this thread:
    Well, es, that's the exact reason this thread is doomed to failure. You (and drj) fail to acknowledge and/or accept that origins science is non-observational, thus untestable, unrepeatable, and unfalsifiable.


    Actually, on the contrary, I tend to agree with your assumption. Creation science is non-observational, thus untestable, unrepeatable, and unfalsible... that is basically the antithesis of science, and puts it squarely in the religion/philosophy territory.

    Anyhow, it seems many other YEC's on this forum, and possibly some notable ones like Ken Ham, disagree with this assertion that it is untestable and non-observational. This thread is an invitation for those in that camp to show their stuff. If you hold the above assumption to be true, you then you werent the target audience for this thread.



    iluvatar -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/21/2008 11:24:20 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: drmark

    quote:

    This fails drj11's third requirement for this thread:
    Well, es, that's the exact reason this thread is doomed to failure. You (and drj) fail to acknowledge and/or accept that origins science is non-observational, thus untestable, unrepeatable, and unfalsifiable.


    There are plenty of phenomena related to origins science which are testable, repeatable, and falsifiable.

    quote:

    So it's really not about evidence at all, but rather the assumptions and interpretations that lead to differing conclusions.


    Then present interpretations, the evidence supporting those interpretations, and the reason why this interpretation is the best (i.e. most consistent with the evidence).

    -Dan.



    drmark -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/21/2008 11:36:18 AM)

    quote:

    Actually, on the contrary, I tend to agree with your assumption. Creation science is non-observational, thus untestable, unrepeatable, and unfalsible... that is basically the antithesis of science, and puts it squarely in the religion/philosophy territory.
    On the contrary, you apparently do not even understand my "assumption", which is actually a basic fact of science. There is no observational methodology to scientifically prove the age of the earth and this thread is fruitless until you take off your blinders and admit it!

    quote:

    There are plenty of phenomena related to origins science which are testable, repeatable, and falsifiable.
    Sorry, Dan, just because they're related does NOT mean cause and effect! This is the great myth of conflating natural selection/adaptation with universal common descent. We see this nonsense over and over again in these threads.

    quote:

    Then present interpretations, the evidence supporting those interpretations, and the reason why this interpretation is the best (i.e. most consistent with the evidence).
    This has been done on numerous previous threads. The end result is the same - "my scientists are better than your scientists". I'm really not interested in "better scientists". I am interested in the truth and there's only one Source of Truth.



    drj11 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/21/2008 12:11:17 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: drmark
    On the contrary, you apparently do not even understand my "assumption", which is actually a basic fact of science. There is no observational methodology to scientifically prove the age of the earth and this thread is fruitless until you take off your blinders and admit it!


    That's fine, we have established this thread is not for you.

    quote:

    This has been done on numerous previous threads. The end result is the same - "my scientists are better than your scientists". I'm really not interested in "better scientists". I am interested in the truth and there's only one Source of Truth.


    And discussions about evolution are present in many other threads, yet people continue to make threads about it. Many people here sure seem to think there is plenty of evidence for a young earth that falls within the scientific realm. Furthermore, they would seem to say this evidence exists according to what is universally regarded as science, not whatever convenient redefinition you want to impose on it. This topic I hope would be a place to gather many of those YEC ideas under one roof for easy discussion. And once again, we have established that this topic is not for you.



    Method -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/21/2008 12:27:15 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: drmark

    The only big issue to discuss is whose assumptions and interpretations of the evidence will we agree with.


    What is wrong with this rule?

    "Present objective scientific evidence."

    Any interpretation you propose has to refer to objective, testable observations.

    What we want to know is how one would conclude that the Earth is young without ever hearing about the Bible. If the Earth is truly young then one should be able to come to that conclusion independent of the Bible, wouldn't you agree? Or are you saying that no one would ever come to the conclusion that the Earth is young without first accepting a literal Genesis as the inerrant truth? If the latter then you have confirmed for us that YEC is religious dogma, not science.



    essentialsaltes -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/21/2008 1:28:23 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: drmark

    quote:

    This fails drj11's third requirement for this thread:
    Well, es, that's the exact reason this thread is doomed to failure. You (and drj) fail to acknowledge and/or accept that origins science is non-observational, thus untestable, unrepeatable, and unfalsifiable. So it's really not about evidence at all, but rather the assumptions and interpretations that lead to differing conclusions. The age of the earth is ALWAYS about "theology/philosophy" but uniformitarian naturalists are incapable of admitting it!


    Very well, you have established that you believe there is no scientific evidence for your position (or any other). Let YECs who believe they do have scientific evidence present theirs.



    gluadys -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/21/2008 1:31:04 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: drmark

    My basic assumption is that true knowledge, hence scientific facts, can only be determined by reliance on God's Word. Not man-made theories or humanist dogma.

    Are you willing to accept that assumption?



    On the basis that creation is the outcome of God's Word (John 1:1-3) and therefore creation is due as much respect as a revelation of God's Word as scripture, yes, I am willing to accept that assumption.

    I am not willing to accept a so-called "reliance on God's Word" that turns a blind eye to half of what God has revealed through his Word.



    drmark -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/21/2008 1:39:39 PM)

    quote:

    I am not willing to accept a so-called "reliance on God's Word" that turns a blind eye to half of what God has revealed through his Word.
    And I am not willing to accept your so-called "real world" that is half-defined by blind and godless standards of uniformitarian naturalism.



    Method -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/21/2008 1:50:49 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: drmark
    And I am not willing to accept your so-called "real world" that is half-defined by blind and godless standards of uniformitarian naturalism.


    We are willing to accept supported and testable assumptions and interpretations. Where are they? If you claim that the speed of light has changed then I am more than willing to look at the evidence supporting this claim. If you claim that radioactive decay has changed in the past I am again more than willing to look at the evidence. What is wrong with that?



    tsnody2001 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/21/2008 3:16:23 PM)

    Whatever happened to the rules that were set in place before this discussion began? No one is following them, or even trying to...



    tsnody2001 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/21/2008 3:32:33 PM)

    Some of the best "evidence", in my opinion is that all organisms cannot function without such things as bacteria and many other things. Our bodies, for instance, cannot function without (are co-dependant on) many different things (i.e., blood, skin, specific roles each part performs). How can be true if each part were not created simultaneously? How can the blood serve its purpose with oxygen, and vice versa? There are many different examples such as this one, but I will stop here for now? Sorry, this does not deal specifically with the age of the earth.



    Method -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/21/2008 4:08:31 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: tsnody2001

    Some of the best "evidence", in my opinion is that all organisms cannot function without such things as bacteria and many other things. Our bodies, for instance, cannot function without (are co-dependant on) many different things (i.e., blood, skin, specific roles each part performs). How can be true if each part were not created simultaneously? How can the blood serve its purpose with oxygen, and vice versa? There are many different examples such as this one, but I will stop here for now? Sorry, this does not deal specifically with the age of the earth.


    It is certainly and interesting topic if you want to start a new thread.



    DanJames -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/21/2008 9:27:35 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: drj11
    Anyhow, it seems many other YEC's on this forum, and possibly some notable ones like Ken Ham, disagree with this assertion that it is untestable and non-observational. This thread is an invitation for those in that camp to show their stuff. If you hold the above assumption to be true, you then you werent the target audience for this thread.

    Ken Ham is on this thread? I had no idea-- Sorry, anyway. I'm afraid I haven't seen or heard from too many who are knowledgeable in geology. All that I know if from high school geology, Earth System Science, and the young earth articles I've read on the topic. Perhaps I can wrestle with you a bit from that meager knowledge base. When I think of evidence for a young earth, I think of the rock layers all stacked on each other without evidence of erosion, much like the Mt. St. Helens layers that we know were formed quickly. Where's the evidence for a flood? You're looking at it when you look at Grand Canyon. It's layers formed by the Flood. Of course, that doesn't prove that the earth is young, it simply demonstrates that the hypothesis of Flood Geology should not be rejected.



    evry1needsgod -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/22/2008 12:23:36 AM)

    I'm with drmark on this one. There is no "slam dunk" evidence that a YEC can provide to prove the earth is young. Even an OEC or a Big Bang Theorist has no evidence of this sort. The most that can be provided are interpretations of evidence, and the most a YEC can do (like myself) is provide evidence to prove another way was possible. Such evidence includes the example DanJames provided. It has been shown that sediment layers do not require massive amounts of time to form. All it requires is a rapid movement of sediment (perhaps the flood?) to create said layers. So when one visits the Grand Canyon and reads the information that says "It took # millions of years to carve these layers", it is very likely this is a lie. So if a YEC is honest to himself, there is no "slam dunk" evidence to prove the Earth is young, but there's also no "slam dunk" evidence to prove the earth is old either. It all depends on which interpretation you choose to accept. Is it true that a stream can create a canyon through massive amounts of time? Absolutely. But is it also true that with the proper conditions, the layers found in the Grand Canyon can be created in less than a week? Yes. You pick.

    Other so called "evidence" from a YEC that is more-so AGAINST old earth beliefs are fossils. It has been shown that fossils do not require massive amounts of time to form either. There have been fossils found at the bottom of multiple oceans that shows the SCALES of fish, meaning the scales were intact when the fossil was formed. Scales decay, which proves it took short amounts of time to form these fossils. Again, this can be interpreted as evidence supporting a flood as recorded in Genesis. Does it PROVE there was a flood? Nope. Does it PROVE the earth is young? Nope. But any honest individual must admit that they can not prove how old the earth is.

    So drj11, this is probably the reason you did not receive much response in your previous thread, and is the reason you will most like find the same here. But, I bit!



    gluadys -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/22/2008 9:07:17 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
    Other so called "evidence" from a YEC that is more-so AGAINST old earth beliefs are fossils. It has been shown that fossils do not require massive amounts of time to form either. There have been fossils found at the bottom of multiple oceans that shows the SCALES of fish, meaning the scales were intact when the fossil was formed. Scales decay, which proves it took short amounts of time to form these fossils.


    Fossilization does take time. You are confusing burial with fossilization. In fact fossilization often requires rapid burial in material that seals off the body from decay. But fossilization is not identical with burial. Fossilization is the gradual replacement of the organic material with mineral material. A fossil bone is not made of bone. It is made of rock. A fossil tree is not made of wood; it is made of rock. Molecule by molecule the organic material is slowly replaced by mineral material. That does take time, even after rapid burial.



    tsnody2001 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/22/2008 10:48:50 AM)

    I agree with you last post, gluadys. Fossilization does take time, but millions of years? Do you understand (everyone, not just gluadys) that if this world were millions of years old, the fossils we find now would have been destroyed long ago, since the magma under the earth's crust is recycled by erupting volcanoes? When a volcanoe erupts, it is essentially spewing up molten lava that has recently been turned to the same. Take the gravitational force of the earth and moon. That force is weakening and the moon is slowly drifting away at a steady, observable rate. ASSUMING (I admit that have to assume here) that this rate has been steady and has not increased or decreased significantly, just 500,000 years ago the moon would have been so close to the earth, it would have brought the Atlantic tide in to somewhere around Chicago. 1 million years ago the earth would have spinning so fast, dinosaurs would be close to just flying off into space unwillingly. Add onto that the steadily decreasing magnetic field of the sun, which is the cause of the decreasing gravitational force between the earth and the moon. And the temperature of the sun is steadily decreasing. At this rate, 1 million years ago the sun would have been too hot to support life of any kind on earth. Common sense says that when you walk into a room and see a cup of steaming coffee, you know the coffee was placed there recently. Or if you come across a burning candle, you know just by the fact that is still burning that it was recently placed there.



    Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>



    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI