I'm a YEC. Challenge me.

[Jackalope]

Interesting first link Jeff. Strange that I haven't come across these problems before.

I see little of substance in the first one, and I didn't check any of the others. Essentially, the first is loaded with fallacious reasoning - to paraphrase "There are observations that scientists didn't expect, ergo Goddidit."

The ICR stuff I would not touch with a ten-foot pole. It's been done to death already.

[Jackalope]

Poor Lilly. She wants it so bad, and yet they won't make her moderator.

They fear the darkness in my soul! THEY FEAR MY POWER!

They tells me they wants me here. But they don't, actually I suppose the deal breaker would be a green name... but I'm sure I'd get over it. It'd look weird as hell, though.

You know the funny thing is I never would have thought you'd want to be a moderator.

[Zazzy]

I'll offer this to Jeff as well: I'd be happy to teach you how to navigate the peer-reviewed scientific literature so you can find reliable sources from scientists doing work in the field. It's not very difficult.

[Esquilax]

A few links (I had to look them up real quick):
http://creation.com/young-saturn
http://www.icr.org/article/7200/
Items 1 – 3 here: http://www.icr.org/articles/view/1842/264/
Items 65 through 95 here: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Okay, and now we're going to play a little game called "what isn't science?"

For starters, this isn't science:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

This is what we call a dishonest presupposition, or an agenda: it means I don't have to take seriously anything coming out of this source, and you shouldn't either, because they've admitted they're only accepting findings that prove their position and not mainstream science.

This also isn't science:

We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless dogma of evolutionary humanism.

Again, an agenda from a source that can't even get accredited, and isn't a scientific organization. Why would I take this seriously?

Would you accept the findings of an organization that proudly espoused an anti-theistic bias right on their website, in plain english? I doubt it.

---

You might as well just say that a space wizard farted on reality, and his cosmologically arcane fart gas caused everything to age a bunch.

At the moment, both claims have the same level of evidence. Care to add some more to yours?

Yes, they (almost) do.

No, not really. I just like mine better.

So, are you interested in what is true, or what you want to believe?

[pocaracas]

I'm sober and out of pain reliever so I know I'll regret this, but what the hell! OK, what scientific evidence do you have that contradicts the generally accepted age of the universe?

Here are a few links:
http://creation.com/young-saturn

Lots of "I don't know, hence god"... based on very sketchy data...

http://www.icr.org/article/7200/

Some remark about some magnetic field aligning well with some other creationist calculations of magnetic fields from water...
Wait until real scientists explain that... Not even googling it.

Items 1 – 3 here: http://www.icr.org/articles/view/1842/264/

1 is not true. There is no "winding up dilema" That thing was made up by creationists... Also, "evolutionists" do not make claims about the Universe, only maybe about evolution of species on Earth... perhaps stretching it to other potential planets.
2 is idiotic, failing to account for all the supernovae that occur at the galactic center, where the star density is greater and so more supernovae would exist there... Also, more stars around, means all the gas gets quickly sucked into some of them.
3 "According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to " Couldn't read anything else... sorry, that's just stupid.

Items 65 through 95 here: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Too many to list individually.
Moon Origin_of_the_Moon

argghhh I stopped at 80, Only half-truths and flat out lies...
Come on.
Have you even tried to find out if these people are lying to you?
Are you that gullible?!

A friend of mine, once, came up to me with something he'd heard about from another guy who he wouldn't doubt. It was about an alleged beneficial effect on your overall health from eating peach cores. One a day. Google about it, there are tons of sites claiming that it's good for you.

Then you find that some doctors have actually tested that... not just once!... and guess what? There's nothing suggesting any improvement on anyone's health.
My friend was wowed by all the sites claiming the same thing, but never bothered to look for actual data.
I showed it to him and he stopped eating those things.
Don't be gullible. Research...

---

Ironic isn't it that in a thread about a young Earth John posts a chart that supports an old Earth as evidence of a young Earth then accuses us of conformation bias when we don't see support for a 10,000 year old Earth in billion plus year old moon rocks.

No, I accuse you of confirmation bias when you only see 4 - 4.5 billion year ages despite a significant number of other ages. Some older in fact. As you guys sometimes say - they can't all be right, but they could all be wrong.

They are all wrong!
That's why they should have an error bar attached to each value.
Usually, when you take into consideration the error bar, they can match.
When most of the methods match, but a few don't, a few reasons for that can be that the method was not properly carried out, or some assumption inherent of that method was not followed (ruling it a useless waste of time by the researchers), or the method is not valid for that kind of rock, or the researcher was cheating and lying, YES it does happen.

Now, this thread is about YEC, and I still fail to see how to reconcile radiometric dating with the YEC alleged age of the Universe.

[JeffB]

Crossless1, max-greece, Cthulhu Dreaming, Esquilax and others:
I’ll take a moment to put a final post, then perhaps search other atheist forums.
To review: I mentioned that I spent the last few years reading arguments against YEC. I really had, not to prove anything to anyone, but to myself.

During my search, I didn’t care about the person’s credibility, but what was said. When I came across a ridiculous argument (numerous times), I simply skipped it and moved on.

I came here looking for more. I went and read the links provided (one was a large website, I did my best at doing a search within it).

I mentioned challenges to the age of the universe. Some were curious. I provided links.
All I got in response were excuses not to read them: discrediting the source, or stopping at the weak argument considered weak.

And here's what's most ironical, I’M told the following:

So, are you interested in what is true, or what you want to believe?

I’m going to try another forum. Perhaps I’ll eventually find an atheist not afraid to do that same level of research: not afraid to read challenges to his own beliefs, willing skip past the bad ones (yes, unfortunately they do exist).

Surely there must be some out there. So far I have found not one.
Good day.
-Jeff

---

Here are a few links:
http://creation.com/young-saturn

Lots of "I don't know, hence god"... based on very sketchy data...

http://www.icr.org/article/7200/

Some remark about some magnetic field aligning well with some other creationist calculations of magnetic fields from water...
Wait until real scientists explain that... Not even googling it.

Items 1 – 3 here: http://www.icr.org/articles/view/1842/264/

1 is not true. There is no "winding up dilema" That thing was made up by creationists... Also, "evolutionists" do not make claims about the Universe, only maybe about evolution of species on Earth... perhaps stretching it to other potential planets.
2 is idiotic, failing to account for all the supernovae that occur at the galactic center, where the star density is greater and so more supernovae would exist there... Also, more stars around, means all the gas gets quickly sucked into some of them.
3 "According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to " Couldn't read anything else... sorry, that's just stupid.

Items 65 through 95 here: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Too many to list individually.
Moon Origin_of_the_Moon

argghhh I stopped at 80, Only half-truths and flat out lies...
Come on.
Have you even tried to find out if these people are lying to you?
Are you that gullible?!

A friend of mine, once, came up to me with something he'd heard about from another guy who he wouldn't doubt. It was about an alleged beneficial effect on your overall health from eating peach cores. One a day. Google about it, there are tons of sites claiming that it's good for you.

Then you find that some doctors have actually tested that... not just once!... and guess what? There's nothing suggesting any improvement on anyone's health.
My friend was wowed by all the sites claiming the same thing, but never bothered to look for actual data.
I showed it to him and he stopped eating those things.
Don't be gullible. Research...

---

No, I accuse you of confirmation bias when you only see 4 - 4.5 billion year ages despite a significant number of other ages. Some older in fact. As you guys sometimes say - they can't all be right, but they could all be wrong.

They are all wrong!
That's why they should have an error bar attached to each value.
Usually, when you take into consideration the error bar, they can match.
When most of the methods match, but a few don't, a few reasons for that can be that the method was not properly carried out, or some assumption inherent of that method was not followed (ruling it a useless waste of time by the researchers), or the method is not valid for that kind of rock, or the researcher was cheating and lying, YES it does happen.

Now, this thread is about YEC, and I still fail to see how to reconcile radiometric dating with the YEC alleged age of the Universe.

Oops, one last post: pocaracas, you were posting this while I was writing also.

Thank pocaracas you for at least reading through those.

[Esquilax]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I have no patience for someone who, when told that their sources are riddled with bias, fallacies and logical errors, recasts the entire conversation into an accusation that we're not willing to consider an opposing view.

I went to your links, dude. Nothing there was particularly strong. One of them hard locked my computer twice, in fact, but I kept looking.

And I went further. I looked into the organization making the claims, and let me tell you, that's something I shouldn't really have to do, but when it comes to creationist sources we have to because creationists have a proven history of lying and distorting facts to fit their view. Lo and behold, this was true here. And yet somehow, my continued research denotes a lack of willingness to listen.

And through all of this, your one response was that you prefer to believe your unevidenced god claim over anyone else's. You started out the thread by saying you weren't interested in a debate, and yet we aren't willing to listen?

Enjoy your time in the echo chamber, then. When you've encountered the little splinter of intellectual honesty you have left, and nurtured it into a respect for scientific rigor and peer review, come back and see us. Until then, why should we bother dealing with an individual who is so gleefully ready to swallow any old shit so long as it confirms mummy and daddy's indoctrination?

[Chas]

in God's Kingdom even bacteria have a purpose in his grand design.

Bacteria are way more important on the planet than people are. If all the people died tomorrow, the bacteria would barely notice. If all the bacteria died tomorrow, all other life would dead shortly thereafter.

Bacteria are my peeps.

More than that, several pounds of bacteria are part of what you consider you.

[Doubting Thomas]

A friend of mine, once, came up to me with something he'd heard about from another guy who he wouldn't doubt. It was about an alleged beneficial effect on your overall health from eating peach cores. One a day. Google about it, there are tons of sites claiming that it's good for you.

Don't peach pits contain cyanide? Or am I thinking of a different fruit?

[Jackalope]

I mentioned challenges to the age of the universe. Some were curious. I provided links.
All I got in response were excuses not to read them: discrediting the source, or stopping at the weak argument considered weak.

In the case of ICR, we've gone through their bullshit ad nauseum. It's crappy, ad hoc nonsense and not worth spending any time on.

Your other source? All I see is bare assertions and arguments from ignorance.

You like links? Here's one for you.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

It's a bit dated, but it provides solid counter arguments to about every creationist claim that existed at the time - and it illustrates a damn good reason why creationists don't get published in mainstream journals: their research is ad hoc and shoddy.