I'm a YEC. Challenge me.

[Crossless2.0]

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

I know this might come as a shock to you, but you didn't introduce anyone here to the ICR. They've been around for years, and their bullshit is well known. This isn't about being "afraid to read challenges" to our beliefs. As I said, my time is too precious to me to waste it addressing their bazillion-and-one fallacious reasons to believe Yahweh did it all a little while ago. I asked you to pick a few of the more impressive arguments so the conversation could at least proceed with some order. Now you want to take your ball and go home.

Good riddance, Jesus freak. Come back when you learn the difference between science and propaganda.

Now, about those rabbits . . .

[JesusHChrist]

Cognitive dissonance can be a bitch.

[TheBeardedDude]

At 25 pages, I'll have to apologize in advance if I make a point already raised.

In the YEC idea, it necessarily means that what we know via science that all science that supports A) an old Earth and B) the evolutionary history of life, must be wrong. And systematically wrong in the same ways consistently.

Why is science wrong about these observations, experiments, conclusions, and data interpretations?

YEC makes assumptions about processes like radiometric decay being wrong. How do you get A) older dates through changing the rates? B) get dates of varying ages even in the same systems from rate changes? C) and how do you change the rates of decay?

If all of the sediments on Earth with fossil life in them display a young Earth and a flood, why are there none of the lifeforms from the sediments highest up in the sediments the furthest down? Surely the already dead would not have been able to escape the rising flood waters, why are they preserved along with those who supposedly did get away?

Organisms like bivalves or other non-motile organisms (like all plants) are preserved throughout the record, shouldn't they be restricted to a single layer?

Brachiopods were clearly very diverse in the past, but are now restricted to only a few taxa living in odd/hostile environments. Why did their diversity decline after the flood?

What about marine and freshwater animals? The oceans would have become more fresh and they would have all died while the lakes would have become more saline and they would have all died. Noah didn't take 2 of all of them and clearly could not have taken any of the deepwater organisms.

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

[Jackalope]

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?

Yes, about .9mg/g.

[John V]

You do understand don't you John that the moon was geologically active in the past, and the rocks found there would date across a range of ages?

http://www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/2841.pdf

Yes, of course I understand that. Did you look at the chart? it gives sample numbers in the first column. There are differences in ages given by different methods for the same sample.

[max-greece]

I have the feeling that the OP has already gone but:

"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 am afraid that was your big mistake - not evaluating the person who makes the claim. How did you judge what they offered? On the way it made you feel? How it integrated with your existing belief's?

Sadly one of the firs things you have to do when reading astonishing claims (like science now shows Saturn to be just 10,000 years old) is to figure out who is saying it, where they come from, whether they might have other agendas they are trying to promote and so on.

Then you go off and do a bit of research on their claims. Is anyone else saying the same thing? Someone you can be fairly sure doesn't have an agenda? If they do then you have something to go on. If everyone else in the field you can find contradicts the first finding....you draw your conclusions.

[John V]

I am afraid that was your big mistake - not evaluating the person who makes the claim.

Sounds familiar...

Oh yeah - this is one method I use when arguing against the position that all religious claims have equal support.

[Esquilax]

Yes, of course I understand that. Did you look at the chart? it gives sample numbers in the first column. There are differences in ages given by different methods for the same sample.

Yes, that's called an error bar: nobody is claiming that these dating methods are perfectly accurate, but you can see that they group around the same date range. The ones that go noticeably under that are K-Ar readings, which aren't accurate because they record the last heating and impact event of the rocks- taken from a body that takes regular meteorite hits- rather than the actual age of the rock.

As I showed, in my link to you before.

[max-greece]

I am afraid that was your big mistake - not evaluating the person who makes the claim.

Sounds familiar...

Oh yeah - this is one method I use when arguing against the position that all religious claims have equal support.

But not when evaluating the anonymous writers of your bible apparently.

[Zazzy]

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

Joy! Another person who revels in this fact! I sometimes wonder if we are all here as giant housing and feeding condos for bacteria.

And add to that the fact that all your mitochondria evolved from bacteria, and that huge pieces of that bacterial DNA have transferred into our genomes, and you start looking like a big Petri dish.

And don't get me started on how much of our genome is viral.