This weekend I was talking with a Christian about evolution, and when I said something about the age of the universe, I caught an ever-so-subtle eye roll from him. He didn't comment on that, but having a strange feeling, I had to ask, "Wait.... exactly how old do you think the universe is?"

"Well the genealogies of the Bible add up to about 6,000 years, so I figure that's about right."

I've never fully understood how it is that some people can truly believe this. I've heard the arguments of 'apparent age,' and I know that they always fall back on 'science is often wrong,' but despite claims to the contrary, I've never seen any genuine scientific evidence that the earth could really only be 6,000 years old. I once read a book of essays from 50 PhDs on why they believe in a literal young-earth creation. Each essay boiled down to 'the Bible says it and that's what I believe despite the evidence.' One even acknowledged that by by excising everything in the Bible that conflicted with science, he was left with shreds of paper that weren't recognizable as a book. His conclusion: "I believe it anyway."

So this is primarily to the theists... What scientific evidence is there for a young-earth creation?

There is no evidence of anything in the bible. They freely choose to believe it to be true because it says so in the bible. Believe without evidence no matter what the evidence says it is true trust the book
So.. all in all its the mind set people are stuck in neutral believing without evidence and keep revving the engine wanting it to be true. Simple fact the earth is old and god didn't play into creating anything.
The creationist argument falls flat because well dinosaurs and fossils also a fossil record.

In the case of religions, standard individual belief in reality is replaced by a communally held falsehood which serves to hold the 'believers' in a socially cohesive group. In fact, the falsity of the belief serves to identify the members of the group and cement them into a stable unit capable of independent action. The more you hammer on your age of the earth, the more firmly they hold to the goofy 'truth' of 6000 years age of the earth. The social glue it provides holds more firmly if the belief is false. Were they to believe in what could be rationally supported, then anyone could join.
Don't fall for the 'truth will ultimately prevail' fable, often it doesn't.

Absolutely nothing to even remotely suggest a young Earth. On the other hand-Everything I'm aware of within the scope of my scientific knowledge suggests the opposite.

There's a very rare book written by Isaac Asimov called: Beginnings; the story of origins.

This is the greatest book I know of for the laity. He offers fantastic and extremely interesting brief treatments of just about all achieved human knowledge. The beauty is he does so chronologically with our primitive beliefs and the basis for them. The book concludes with treatments on modern cosmology, biology, history, geology and evolutionary biology and genetics.

Example in biology and EVO/ genetics: You'll learn about heredity from Mendel's pea plants up though Harold Urey and Sydney Fox's modern synthesis. You'll start with Darwin and A.R. Wallace and conclude with Crick/Watson's DNA and how it unified biology with observed mutations. Also covers Stanley Miller's famous experiment and even things like the Drake Equation.

Layperson: You have my word. Go find this book and you'll feel as if your knowledge doubled.

Professional Scientist: See above. You'll be delighted having so much varied information fresh again. You'll remember why you bought that first Darwin fish t-shirt.

I promise all..You'll thank me for this gem.

Oftentimes for references to the bible, I wish we had a smiley of a dog chasing its own ass.

The scientifical part of the 6000 year old earth would be the Bishop of Usher having the acumen to noodle out a number arithmetically via sequential addition.

I know, a heady and esoteric concept for your typical christer.

Wilful ignorance seems to be a badge of honour among fundamentalists. Whenever they try and talk about science, they oversimplify it to the point of a child playing with Lego. The only "research" they do is to find out what it is they are denying, so they can further insulate themself from the truth and slag it off more efficiently. The speed this research was done shows very quickly, when they begin a debate by utterly failing to describe the position they are opposing.

God's up there face palming.

(January 12, 2015 at 11:15 am)robvalue Wrote: God's up there face palming.

And Jesus is rolling over in his grave.

It is simply a waste of time to try and beat believers over the head with evidence. Some (few maybe) start from the assumption that things can be learned, that this is a rational universe in the sense that events can be strung together without resorting to magic. Religion assumes that this is a magical universe where events can only be strung together according to “god's will”. “Evidence” is a concept they barely grasp for anything that suggests they are wrong about their god is dismissed out of hand. It can't possibly be true. Faith, for them, is far more important. It marks them as recipients of god's grace, puts them in the kingdom, grants them access to heaven. Holding onto faith in the face of evidence is a badge of honor, the mark of the true believer.

It is a disconnect that echos throughout every attempt for the two sides to communicate. Every time a non-believer offers any evidence to a believer that contradicts their god belief, they use it to dig themselves even further into the grave of faith. Asking the believer for evidence is equally useless. Any "evidence" they offer will be based on a faith the non-believer simply doesn't share, and doesn't quite understand.

Here is a good example. Star light, all by iteslef, proves the Bible story of creation is wrong in every specific. A YEC will look at those same stars, see "the glory of god", and offer them as proof that that same Bible story is true. The two sides can't even talk to each other in a way that is remotly "rational".

Do we have any serious YECs left here?