Defending Young-Earth Creationism Scientifically

[dyresand]

"Satan makes the earth look older than it is to fool people into not believing".

I've actually had someone say to me this so I dont think there is any scientific evidence. I mean we have trees older than 6,000 years ffs.

edit: I really should use google before writing things on the internet because it turns out the oldest verified trees are just over 5,000 years old, according to wiki at least, but I think my point still stands.

Next time you run into that person. Ask them this do you have evidence of satan if so i want to see it.

[downbeatplumb]

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?

Stop him someone, he's trying to summon Waldorf!!!!

[Minimalist]

Oh yeah....Waldork. There's another first-rate shithead who hasn't been around in a while.

[Anomalocaris]

GC has narrowed it down to not more than 50,000 years old and 6,000 years old.

Right! How could I forget, GC only trusts the C14. All that Argon Potassium stuff is from the devil!

There is also Statler Wordorff, who claims speed of light is infinite, thus distance measurements to stars an implied time of travel of light is all nonsense, and Universe is therefore whatever age he thinks the writer of bible (which is of course god) thought (the deduced thoughts of god is of course the supreme reality overriding any evidence) it is. And of course he thinks that is about 6000 years old.

[vorlon13]

Umm . .

apple, walnut mayo ???

[JonDarbyXIII]

It really does boil down to that, doesn't it. Having a PhD obviously doesn't protect against that, especially since 1. very shady institutions give out PhDs and 2. it is a well-known fact that parts of the YEC community send drones to renowned institutions for the express purpose of using their reputation for their causes.

That and the fact that most of the 'renowned sciencists' on the side of the creationists are mathematicians and psychologists (there was even one prolific author who turned out to be a dentist). It is almost impossible to find a creationist who is a biologist, and anthropologist, etc.

Anything approaching scientific in the Young Earth camp is not so much about scientifically proving a young earth as it is about trying to poke holes in what the rest of the world recognizes as true. In practice, this means quote mining to show scientist are either wrong or unsure, and trying to explain away evidence with ideas like, "god put the fossils in the ground to test our faith." Other than the Bible itself, I haven't ever seen any evidence of a young earth, only stupid attempts to explain away the evidence of an ancient earth. It's Christian apologetics applied to science.

When I was talking to this particular person, he started out trying to use scientific arguments, but they all seem to be prepackaged responses. When I gave him examples showing how this was invalid, he kept deferring back to the argument that 'science is wrong all the time' to show that the Bible was the better source. It's odd that they distrust science so much, yet at the same time they have that longing to have their ideas in the category of valid science.

[robvalue]

You just can't have a sensible discussion with anyone who is willing to discount almost all of the scientific research we have done in favour of an entirely unsupported bunch of ludicrous assertions.

Science walks forwards from the evidence. Religion creeps backwards from its conclusions.

[Alex K]

Right! How could I forget, GC only trusts the C14. All that Argon Potassium stuff is from the devil!

There is also Statler Wordorff, who claims speed of light is infinite, thus distance measurements to stars an implied time of travel of light is all nonsense, and Universe is therefore whatever age he thinks the writer of bible (which is of course god) thought (the deduced thoughts of god is of course the supreme reality overriding any evidence) it is. And of course he thinks that is about 6000 years old.

Oh yeah! I even learned a new bit about the relationship between special and general relativity by understanding that sillyness.

[Faith No More]

Do we have any serious YECs left here?

Oh, don't ask that question. Those conversations always devolve into pages and pages of one line replies to one line replies that make you want to rip your face off.

[TubbyTubby]

How can anyone reconcile the fact that the South American coast and Southern African coasts have seperated 5000km in 6000 years? That's not too far off 2.5m/day!

Or am I wrong to assume that believers actually give any credence to tectonic plate theory?