I'm a YEC. Challenge me.

[JeffB]

Darn, I walked away from the computer too long. Seven pages in a few hours, I didn’t anticipate that much of a response. Looks like I walked into a hornets nest.

Amidst all the ‘noise’, I do see some of you actually responded with links to challenges to YEC. I appreciate it; I’ll certainly check those out.

And Brian, there are portions of Creationism that are not scientific (belief in God), and portions that are. Over, it needs to be logically sound. It’s challenges to the overall soundness of the model I’m interested in researching. And so far, it’s looking pretty solid…and obviously miss understood by many.
BTW, anyone here take that same level of effort to research challenges to evolution? I really am curious.
[/align]

[catfish]

Uh...yeah.

BTW: re·plen·ish

riˈpleniSH/

verb

1. fill (something) up again.

I don't think its only definition means "repopulate," which is the word I think you're shooting for.

Stop assuming you know what I'm thinking.
You got the definition, now contemplate the implications of that.

[Kayenneh]

No, JeffB, I challange you.



To Mortal Kombat.

Finish him!

[Heir Apparent]

Hey Beta, protip: you won't win.

[Zazzy]

Aw, Jeff, wouldn't you rather I tell you about the rabbits again?

Sorry, but this was so funny I had to quote it. George, what will it be like...?

First- there are actual factual scientists here who spend a lot of time reading actual factual science. I am one of them.

Second, there is nothing I can say to YEC no matter how much knowledge I have, because he will not believe me.

YEC is a waste of time.

[Something completely different]

I am a Young Earth Creationist on a quest: I am sincerely interested in reading EVERY argument against YEC.

Brief background: After studying creationism, I was encouraged to see how strong this model has become over the recent decade.
It caused me to want to search out and read arguments AGAINST creation. And the more I read them, the more convinced I became: the creation model is actually very logically solid.

But just to make sure I’ve done a thorough search, I decided to come here and ask members of an atheist forum. I’ve certainly done plenty of searching myself, googling, bing-ing, etc. I’m pretty sure I’ve read all of them, but perhaps you know of some more.
Here’s links to the ‘best’ ones I’ve found (I not included the lesser quality ones):
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Branches_of...reationism
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_ag...t_creation
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4065
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Problems_wi..._inerrancy
http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?cat=16
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html
http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=499
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...reationist (As a YEC, I particularly enjoyed this one)

So, if you have any other good ones, please post them here and I will read them.

**REQUEST: PLEASE keep this thread on topic: posting challenges to YEC.
I am not interested in starting a debate, nor defending myself. I REALLY do want good information in response, from credible sources when possible (not just random thoughts).

(Fellow creationists: please don’t jump in and ramble, just listen. In fact, if you do that same research I’ve done, you might too come out very encouraged by what you believe)

-Jeff

There are hundreds of threads on this forum with creationist claims being debunked.

Read through all of them.

And if non of them cover your subject then post it as a new entry.

Otherwise you will be wasting the time of people who have better things to do than listen to you.

[Beta Ray Bill]

Hey Beta, protip: you won't win.

Fair enough. I've learned through life that if someone doesn't want change, there's nothing you can do to change them. I won't waste any more of my time, or his.

[popeyespappy]

@ the OP

Read the paper Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens. It was written by a Christian specifically for Christians like you.

[Jackalope]

Darn, I walked away from the computer too long. Seven pages in a few hours, I didn’t anticipate that much of a response. Looks like I walked into a hornets nest.

Amidst all the ‘noise’, I do see some of you actually responded with links to challenges to YEC. I appreciate it; I’ll certainly check those out.

And Brian, there are portions of Creationism that are not scientific (belief in God), and portions that are. Over, it needs to be logically sound. It’s challenges to the overall soundness of the model I’m interested in researching. And so far, it’s looking pretty solid…and obviously miss understood by many.
BTW, anyone here take that same level of effort to research challenges to evolution? I really am curious.
[/align]

Here's a challenge. Describe a falsifiable, testable model for young earth creationism that is fully internally coherent, as well as fully coherent with human scientific knowledge in the fields of physics, astronomy, cosmology, chemistry, biology, geology, and any other fields I've forgotten. I don't even care if it's biblically consistent (though I bet you do).

Get published in a mainstream peer reviewed journal and have your model survive the review process.

You know, kind of like mainstream science does with it's leading theories.

If you can't do that, you're just pissing in the wind.

[Heir Apparent]

Hey Beta, protip: you won't win.

Fair enough. I've learned through life that if someone doesn't want change, there's nothing you can do to change them. I won't waste any more of my time, or his.

He desires only to rile up everyone who isn't on to him already