Regarding a Young Earth.

[DanieltheDragon]

Often it seems most debates involving a young earth creation centers around disproving evolution or a Big Bang. I am interested in another aspect. Working under the assumption that evolution,abiogenesis, and the Big Bang are false, what evidence supports a young earth?

I want to examine all pro YEC arguments specifically on the merit of them supporting a young earth. I think if we examine these arguments for what they are we can actually establish the veracity of these claims.

[rogue06]

[Catholicity]

[psstein]

This has to be a troll post.

There's no evidence for a young earth. There's actually negative evidence for a young earth.

[klaus54]

Good luck.

Might as swell shoot spitwads at an aircraft carrier.

If you do an honest study you MIGHT find 0.0001% of the evidence supporting a young Earth but is also explained by an old cosmos, while the other 99.9999% is only explicable with an old cosmos.

But if this will bring back Jorge, it might worth it for the entertainment value.

[klaus54]

Often it seems most debates involving a young earth creation centers around disproving evolution or a Big Bang. I am interested in another aspect. Working under the assumption that evolution,abiogenesis, and the Big Bang are false, what evidence supports a young earth?

I want to examine all pro YEC arguments specifically on the merit of them supporting a young earth. I think if we examine these arguments for what they are we can actually establish the veracity of these claims.

Not sure I smell what you're cooking.

Are you a Young Earth Atheist?

YEA!!!??

[DanieltheDragon]

Not sure I smell what you're cooking.

Are you a Young Earth Atheist?

YEA!!!??

By any means no. On another debate forum the science section gets heavily bombarded by young creationists. Repeating the same arguments. Often these arguments are soley directed at attempting to discredit specifically evolution or the Big Bang. I have not encountered an argument that attempts to establish an actual old age other than "I believe it so".

When I posed this question I got a lot of empty promises and no responses. It would lead me to suspect that even creationists on some level acknowledge that there is no argument that actually establishes a young age earth.

I was referred here by another user who said I would get an answer to the question.

[klaus54]

By any means no. On another debate forum the science section gets heavily bombarded by young creationists. Repeating the same arguments. Often these arguments are soley directed at attempting to discredit specifically evolution or the Big Bang. I have not encountered an argument that attempts to establish an actual old age other than "I believe it so".

When I posed this question I got a lot of empty promises and no responses. It would lead me to suspect that even creationists on some level acknowledge that there is no argument that actually establishes a young age earth.

I was referred here by another user who said I would get an answer to the question.

Ah, I see. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Young Earthers here have been pretty much been wolf-packed off this forum by folks with at least a modicum of scientific knowledge. When they DO post, it's same old drivel, with an occasional Gish Gallop.

Their argument is almost entirely based on their Genesis interpretation - "The Bible sez it, I believe, end of story."

At least that's what their boils down to after you wade through the PRATTS.

BTW, Welcome to TWEB!!!

[shunyadragon]

Good luck.

Might as swell shoot spitwads at an aircraft carrier.

If you do an honest study you MIGHT find 0.0001% of the evidence supporting a young Earth but is also explained by an old cosmos, while the other 99.9999% is only explicable with an old cosmos.

But if this will bring back Jorge, it might worth it for the entertainment value.

Are you sure that an honest study MIGHT find 0.0001% of the evidence supporting a young earth ? I believe your being too generous.

[psstein]

By any means no. On another debate forum the science section gets heavily bombarded by young creationists. Repeating the same arguments. Often these arguments are soley directed at attempting to discredit specifically evolution or the Big Bang. I have not encountered an argument that attempts to establish an actual old age other than "I believe it so".

When I posed this question I got a lot of empty promises and no responses. It would lead me to suspect that even creationists on some level acknowledge that there is no argument that actually establishes a young age earth.

I was referred here by another user who said I would get an answer to the question.

Apologies for thinking you're a troll.

I agree. YEC largely recognizes the only bullets it has are 1) Evolution is wrong and 2) the Big Bang is wrong. Therefore, it spends most of its energy combating (albeit poorly) those two theories. It'll often conflate geology and evolution into one area as well. There is no evidence for a young Earth at all. Most so-called "evidences" fail.

[tabibito]

Often it seems most debates involving a young earth creation centers around disproving evolution or a Big Bang. I am interested in another aspect. Working under the assumption that evolution,abiogenesis, and the Big Bang are false, what evidence supports a young earth?

I want to examine all pro YEC arguments specifically on the merit of them supporting a young earth. I think if we examine these arguments for what they are we can actually establish the veracity of these claims.

YEC adherents believe that the Bible is wholly accurate and "dictated" directly by God. With that in mind, you would find yourself confronted with the only truth they will acknowledge even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Given that they can be faced with ineluctable truth - in black and white - in the Bible itself - that the Bible contains errors, they will still deny that the Bible can be flawed.
They claim that particular verses "prove" the Bible can't be flawed in any way - and they can't acknowledge that the verses they point to say no such thing.

YEC argument is single: The genealogical trace of When A was so old, he begat B, When B was so old, he begat C, When C was so old, he begat D. The trace is stated as an unbroken succession, and being followed gives an age for the Earth of roughly 6000 years.

[DanieltheDragon]

I see lol, feels like looking for the holy grail of YEC arguments

[Cow Poke]

YEC adherents believe that the Bible is wholly accurate and "dictated" directly by God.

In all fairness, I don't know of any YECs who believe the Bible was '"dictated" directly by God'. There may be some, but I think this is an overly general statement.

[JonF]

By any means no. On another debate forum the science section gets heavily bombarded by young creationists. Repeating the same arguments. Often these arguments are soley directed at attempting to discredit specifically evolution or the Big Bang. I have not encountered an argument that attempts to establish an actual old age other than "I believe it so".

The Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth (RATE) group attempted that, especially Humphreys' work with zircons and Baumgardner's work on 14C. http://tinyurl.com/qyz9l5y, http://www.icr.org/rate2/. As usual their efforts were fatally flawed; they posited Accclerated Nuclear Decay (AND) as an explanation, but acknowledged that the fatal heat and radiation release issues were not solved. They shut down in 2005 and there's no evidence of any further work. There are lots of critiques on the web, but the most comprehensive is at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm and http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm.

[tabibito]

In all fairness, I don't know of any YECs who believe the Bible was '"dictated" directly by God'. There may be some, but I think this is an overly general statement.

That is why I said "dictated" and not dictated.