This is a prime example of how YEC don’t understand science. The initial identification actually was questioned
Further field work established the identification was incorrect and was caused by “the original specimen was severely weathered.” Science is self correcting and this is a prime example of how that actually works out. Why would this be considered problematic unless you are just trying to spread a mistrust in science?
I’m no biologist but even I can tell that the majority of these reduce down to “Nanner-nanner”.
In university astronomy we calculated the expected density of the Oort Cloud and the Kuiper Belt from the cloud that formed our solar system, then calculated expected orbit distribution from the cloud-collapse dynamics. One result was that we should expect short-term comets.
Actually, from Spirit Lake at Mt. St. Helens we’ve discovered one simple method: Thousands of trees were deposited in the lake by the eruption and they sank. Someone got to wondering how they piled up on the bottom and discovered that for the most part they didn’t pile up, they sank roots first and hit the bottom standing up – and remaining standing up, like a ghost forest.
The condition that allowed this occurs in many deep lakes and even on continental shelves: very cold water and negligible oxygen. As the decay rate is too slow to be measured, it is expected that Spirit Lake’s “forest” on the bottom will be covered by sediments that will accumulate over something like a million years (barring another eruption).
Yeah, that one’s a bit screwy. I recall looking at rapidly-covered coal beds, which can be distinguished by abundant fossilized plant parts, but I don’t recall any instances where the beds actually turned to coal rapidly – that would be fun to study!
Earthquakes. Tsunamis. Underwater landslides. Large floods from breached containment of lakes.
But yeah, the term is broad; it essentially means any sort of surface of a geological layer that shows movement by air or water that is sandwiched between smooth-surfaced layers. They’re not a problem at all.
And the ones that didn’t break show characteristic signs of incredible age because rock and crystals can only deform at maximum rates that have been measured in the lab – and indicate that the world’s youngest mountains are at a minimum many hundreds of thousands of years old.
Also human civilizations grew up by rivers, even ones on sea coastlines. Rivers flood, sometimes massively. Breaches of lakes can also result in massive floods.
This one is a total joke – it’s assuming a rapid collision, not one happening at a few centimeters a year. And the rocks in the Himalaya don’t show evidence of rapid collision, they show evidence of being many hundreds of thousands of years old.
My insertion there. These brought me the best laugh I’ve had in a long time, especially the top one which belongs in fifth grade science.
Most certainly – many could be answered by high school students and are thus either insincere or seriously ignorant.
I’ll concur–I’m in my first semester of college, but I’m not exactly a normal person of my age when it comes to geology and paleontology.
And to make the people that believe YEC feel good about themselves. As Dan McClellan likes to say:
Interestingly that sounds a lot like one of my botany professors regarding proposed explanations for the emergence of flowering plants: She was not impressed by most of the proposals (in fact read a couple of papers to us in class because they were so outlandish they should have been comedy). Her point at the time was not to waste time speculating when there’s not enough data to hang a single blade of grass on.
That actual botanists could get so creative and get their ideas published in journals was shocking to me back then, but I guess it’s a human weakness to spin stories we can believe regardless of actual information.
Note that the basic approach taken here is dishonest because it’s a double standard. What of the countless things for which YEC has no good answer? The goal of such compilations is not to make an honest argument and consider the evidence fairly; the goal is to pile up claims so as to deceive people into thinking there are loads of problems for old-earth views while making it difficult to deal with each individual false claim.
As to Nebraska Man in particular:
Henry Osborn received a fossil tooth and thought it was from a hominoid. Others disagreed, but Osborn was not one to be careful. He published a description of it as a new genus and species of ape. A newspaper came out with a picture based on Java man, but even Osborn thought that was ridiculous. Excavation soon showed that it was a molar from a peccary, not a hominoid, nor a pig. Humans, peccaries, and pigs all being omnivores, we have fairly similar-looking generic chewing molars.
Thus, further investigation by old-earth workers led to correction of a mistake that had gained little support, within a few years. The incident is evidence for the reliability and honesty of old-earth science.
This correction to the young-earth claims about Nebraska Man has been available to anyone looking up the information since the 1920’s. Yet young-earth sources continue to cite it as proof of the unreliability of paleontological research, ignoring corrections to their claims. Thus, Nebraska Man actually provides evidence that one should not trust young-earth sources.
“The science seems to have identified mitochondrial Eve and the recent origin of x chromosome Adam. This matches recent creation and destroys evolution. Why?”
Like much of the list, this is both sloppy and dishonest. Anyone who doesn’t know whether X or Y chromosome is the male chromosome in therian mammals is not likely to be a good source of information on biology. Both mitochondrial “Eve” and Y chromosome “Adam” date back over 100,000 years and are incompatible with young-earth teaching. Both fit into an overall evolutionary genetic sequence, contrary to antievolutionary claims. The assertion that they match recent creation and clash with evolution is pure propaganda. Again, when one investigates in any detail, this shows that it is the people who produced the list, not the scientists that they are slandering, who should not be trusted.
If anyone truly wants to promote young-earth creation as a biblical option, they should strive for good quality arguments and seek to stop the use of bad arguments to promote creation science.
That was presented as a cautionary tale in the text used when I taught high school science briefly. My students were astounded that anyone would dare claim a new species just from a tooth, and I couldn’t disagree.
But are there any? What I see as the conclusion from question lists like these is that there are no good YEC arguments.
The only “good” argument I have seen is to place the literal reading of Genesis ahead of science and hope and pray that one day the science will get corrected to match.
I can’t blame folks for being attracted to that. I think Todd Wood does that. It took me a long time to discard that (though I am not as smart as he).
I’m sorry but this had me laughing so hard I couldn’t stop.
None I know of, but there definitely won’t be any good arguments as long as they don’t care if the arguments are honest.
I appreciate Timothy reproducing the list of “Questions YEC believe support a literal bible narrative of the age of the earth.” I cracked myself up remembering @adamjedgar’s prior thread about questions that keep him up at night as a YEC believer. Compare the seriousness of the two lists:
I’ll stop there.
This was the only surprise of the whole thread. Are you really a college freshman, Timothy? If so, you certainly had me fooled. I’ll refrain from giving old man advice, but I’m pretty sure you have a bright future.
Yes. My immediate family includes the majority of the current or recently deceased world experts on Carolinian Neogene molluscan faunas (5 of us, counting me), so I have had some good reasons to rapidly become familiar with geology and paleontology.
That is part of how science works. Observations demand explanations. When there are no generally accepted explanations, any hypotheses explaining the observations are steps forward. Showing that these hypotheses are wrong are also steps forward. It is like first collecting a pile of pieces looking crudely correct and then removing wrong ones until only one or few pieces remain.
One fellow published a hypothesis that our life is just a simulation in a very advanced alien computer. That person did not believe in the hypothesis, he published it just because he noted that nobody had published such an idea before. Being the first to publish a scientific hypothesis can be a merit, even when the hypothesis is not true. It may show creative mind and increase the number of citations because every time a hypothesis is mentioned in the scientific literature, it should be accompanied with a reference to the paper where it was first published. In practice, scientists do not always cite the original article but many do. If you get enough of citations, you may be listed as a ‘highly-cited scientist’ which is considered a heavy merit.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. 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.