But they aren’t different. Flat Earthers will insist that they have evidence that proves a flat earth just like YEC.
To prove my point, I am asking you to describe the features a geologic formation would need in order to disprove a recent global flood. If you are unable to describe how a recent global flood could be falsified then YEC is like Flat Earth.
Huge swaths of North America were covered by an inland sea for millions of years. This doesn’t require a global flood nor a recent flood.
Similar rock layering only requires similar conditions, not the same event. It does not require a global flood, nor a recent flood.
The mega tsunami was created by a comet impact, and it was a local event.
Coal and oil deposits are being created right now as microorganisms fall to the bottom of oceans and seas and peat accumulates in bogs and grasslands. No global flooding needed, nor recent flooding.
What you need is a dating method for these deposits to demonstrate that they occurred at the same time and recently. Just insisting that they did isn’t enough. This is not evidence for a recent global flood because none of it requires one.
Is it just me or does anyone else think this discussion is starting to go round and round in circles?
The discussion has certainly moved on from the OP. Since the original topic appears to have been dealt with, I’ll put a timer on this thread for “closing arguments” and anyone who wants to can start a spin-off.
There is little difference. What flat earthism is to the spacial, young earthism is to the temporal. In common, both are based on ulterior beliefs incorporating ancient cosmologies and devoid of any evidence - that includes the stomach content of predators, an argument is typical of the rigor of YEC, which does not stand up common sense, let alone detailed scientific analysis. When the flaws are pointed out, all that remains is assertion and deflection.
…that They are bound by the prevenient laws of nature which They sempiternally instantiate.
Adam,
Yes.
The book of Genesis couldn’t make it more clear that that the flood was worldwide. You are correct.
Yes, evolutionary research is funded by tax dollars (yours and mine), and YEC research is privately funded. So there is no way that YEC organizations can compete with comparable research facilities. So on this forum, any research YEC scientist do can be disregarded because not enough money was spent. So the contention is that the only way that YEC research can be adequate is if the funding is much more than it is. Which is of course absurd. Good research is good research, regardless of how much was spent doing it.
Adam, here are some takeaways for you:
On this forum, “Let every evolutionist be true, and every young earth creationist or even every intelligent design proponent be a liar.”
On this forum, there is no evidence for a young earth that cannot be discounted or ignored. ICR is dishonest, AIG is dishonest, CMI is dishonest. Or the alternative, ignorant.
The ghost of Mary Baker Eddy. Andrew Snelling must be SDA. Of course he is not, but that is irrelevant either way. What about the ghost of Charles Darwin? He was wrong about a lot of stuff, including the complexity of the cell. Does that discount all evolutionary research? Of course not, and it shouldn’t. But of course, the incredible complexity of the cell and the information basis of life is a serious problem for Darwinian evolution. But that is an argument from ID, so again will be summarily dismissed.
Now I ignore my own advice and present some evidence:
Some of the best evidence of a recent worldwide flood is the preservation of intact soft tissues. Now the claims are:
These are biofilms, not original tissue
Oh yes, isn’t it amazing that soft tissue, previously thought to last only a few thousand years at most can actually last 65 million years.
The soft tissue is preserved by the iron in the blood.
I’m sure there are more arguments. Actually it is true that soft tissue can be preserved by iron from blood. It was shown through recent experimentation in a laboratory where the blood was put into a high speed centrifuge twice to concentrate the iron, and then the soft tissue was soaked in this. And presto, sure enough, the soft tissue was preserved. But Dr.Mark Armitage, microscopist, has done extensive research using thin sections and staining the intact tissues, and there is evidence of no iron in the preserved tissues. There is also evidence in these tissues from several specimens that they all drowned. But who is Armitage and what of his research? And is it validated by mainstream science. Of course not, so he can also be dismissed. After all, he was fired by Cal State (was it Fresno?) when his initial report of soft tissue in dinosaur bones was published. So doesn’t that discredit him? Of course not. He was not fired for poor research or poor teaching, because he was guilty of neither, but for his YEC position. (He won a considerable financial settlement in court.)
And if I am right, BioLogos does no research, and spends its resources in sponsoring lectureships at Christian colleges and seminaries. Is that a problem? Not in and of itself. Yet YEC is “bad” for spending time and money on conferences and education. Apparently so.
Any research that has ever been brought to light here has been weighed for its merits. That it has been found wanting is not the fault of the weighers. Money, as you say, has nothing to do with that.
This is a forum for truth-seekers and finders. Our convictions here (those of us who are believers) include that God is a God of truth.
Because here God’s creation and its truths and all that we do or don’t know about it - what confidences we may or may not have about various things, can be discussed openly in the presence of knowledgeable people, many of them faithful believers. While not everyone here is always a truth-teller, it is nonetheless a site that is organized around and led by people who are committed to that and who allow dissenting voices to have their say, even here in their own forum. What they won’t allow is for known falsehood to stand unchallenged.
In contrast to that when one gives their heart over to the keeping of those who prize their own ideologies and allegiances over truth, those venues become witnesses against Christ by showing that truth and integrity have no part among their highest priorities. This web site, in contrast to so many is at least one precious bright spot where convictions, in whatever forms or mouths it may be found can be brought up to the light and be shaken and poked so that the strong may stand and the shaky or even deceitful be revealed for what it is.
We happen to be of the conviction here that the believer should have nothing to fear from truth, because it is God’s creation that we have to study. That is why it is worthwhile to spend time here.
That may have been a plausible argument in the 1970s and 1980s but it has not had a shred of merit since the YEC organisations spent $1.25 million on the RATE project, and it has become even less credible since Answers in Genesis spent $100 million on the Ark Encounter.
What YECs need to produce in terms of evidence is not quantity but quality, and you don’t need billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money for that. Nobody expects you to come up with thousands of studies a year supporting a young earth. But we do expect the studies that you do come up with to be as least as rigorously executed and at least as tightly constrained as conventional old-earth science. $1.25 million should easily have been enough to come up with something better than tiny samples with huge error bars in support of levels of accelerated nuclear decay that would have vaporised the earth if they had any basis in reality.
It’s as simple as this, Craig. Science has rules and honesty has rules. If YECs don’t want to be called liars, they need to stick to them.
And ICR, AIG and CMI are not just hand-waved away as “dishonest” or “ignorant.” On the contrary, you will find specific examples of specific rules of honesty and factual accuracy that they demonstrably flout.
Similarly, if you don’t want your evidence to be discounted or ignored, it needs to meet the same standards of rigour, precision and quality control as mainstream science. YECs are yet to provide any evidence that comes anywhere close to that standard.
What you’re doing here is effectively asking for a free pass to claim anything you like. We might as well just accept that mermaids are evidence for a young earth, because treknobabble.
The difference between biofilms and original tissue is observable, testable and repeatable, even if you must insist that “were you there?” is a legitimate argument (which it isn’t, but that’s a discussion for another time).
The same thing can be said about the difference between haemoglobin and heme breakdown products, between intact blood cells and fragments of blood cells, between skin and fossilised skin, between DNA and DNA breakdown products, and so on and so forth.
The bottom line is that YECs repeatedly make claims about what the soft tissue remnants prove on the basis of demonstrably untrue statements about what the soft tissue remnants actually consist of.
This is a perfectly legitimate argument. The preservative properties of iron on collagen have been demonstrated in the laboratory.
No YEC is not “bad” for spending time and money on conferences and education. YEC is bad for spending time and money on conferences and education that teach falsehood, misinformation, and antagonistic attitudes towards science.
No, BioLogos is a forum for people who believe that claims about science made by Christians should be based on honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information. Anyone who agrees with this will find it worthwhile to spend time here, but you should expect to have it explained to you what honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information actually looks like, and to be held accountable for making sure that the claims that you are making actually meet that standard.
I would propose that there is no such thing as evolutionary research or YEC research. It is just research. (Yes, some is more directed than others…) Evolution is just an explanatory overlay used to explain the results. If YEC hypotheses could explain it better, they would be accepted. But they don’t.
YEC’s can apply for public funding the same way other scientists do. There’s nothing stopping them.
One problem YEC’s might have is that they would have to create testable hypotheses that include criteria for falsification. That’s an issue for YEC. This is probably why they don’t write research grants and submit them to funding agencies like all other research scientists do.
Not at all. The contention is that YEC is not science. It starts with the conclusion and then misrepresents facts in order to serve that conclusion. YEC also lacks falsifiability. As we have seen in many threads, no matter what we observe it will be twisted to fit YEC.
For example, what features would a fossil need in order for YEC’s to accept it as transitional between humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps?
What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify the claim that the Earth is young and that there was a recent global flood?
I have yet to find a YEC who can answer these questions. That’s because YEC is not science. It is a dogmatic religious belief.
YEC’s assert that soft tissue can not be preserved over millions of years, and yet they have no evidence to back this claim. There is no evidence that they would accept as a falsification for this claim.
Have the YECers ever applied for public funding? If so, for what research projects? And what testable hypotheses did they include?
And good luck. _“This topic will automatically close in 37 minutes.”
@cewoldt, the topic is empty stomachs as evidence of animals fleeing the flood, not soft tissue. This has been discussed in length already, but it would be preferrable to open a new topic if that is what you wish to discuss, otherwise we will end up discussing tectonic plates, carbon dating, bio-geography, ANE culture, and be all over the map.
Rosa Parks actually got on the bus. It’s a bit empty to claim you will be discriminated against without actually putting the work in.
My evidence is the inability of YEC’s to describe how YEC can be falsified.
Here are 29 potential falsifications of evolution:
Yes, evolutionists followed the evidence. They ditched their unevidenced opinions when the evidence came in. So why won’t YEC’s?
What about them?
New Topic on Soft Tissue made and related posts moved there for continued discussion on that topic.
Will try again.
This topic was automatically closed after 6 hours. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.