Questions YEC believe support a literal bible narrative of the age of the earth

[St.Roymond]

@paleomalacologist

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.

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.

[St.Roymond]

@paleomalacologist

If anyone truly wants to promote young-earth creation as a biblical option, they should strive for good quality arguments

But are there any? What I see as the conclusion from question lists like these is that there are no good YEC arguments.

[Bill_II]

@St.Roymond

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.

[Randy]

@Bill_II

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).

[St.Roymond]

I’m sorry but this had me laughing so hard I couldn’t stop.

[paleomalacologist (David Campbell)]

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.

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

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:

@Paraleptopecten

“What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?
What was its code? How many amino acids did it have? When did it come into being?
How many kinds of proteins did it have? How many of each?

@adamjedgar

• if there was no death before sin, how the heck did God make sure an ant wasnt accidently stepped on and killed by Adam, Eve, or another large animal in the garden of eden?
• Is the biocycle one of death? How ould YEC answer the question did leaves fall off trees down to the ground, rot, and fertilise the earth?
• Did Adam, Eve, and all the animals have bumholes…did they poop, or is that a result of the corruption of sin? How does a YEC answer such a dilemma? Can a YEC honestly make the seemingly ridiculous claim “no need to poo and wee in the garden of eden” in answer to such a question?

I’ll stop there.

@Paraleptopecten

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.

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.

[Terry_Sampson]

• Latest installment of Gutsick Gibbon: The Many PROBLEMS with “Created Kinds” | Debunking Young Earth Creationism
• That was a really, really interesting G.G. video. @jammycakes

[Paraleptopecten (Timothy Campbell)]

@Jay313

Are you really a college freshman, Timothy? If so, you certainly had me fooled.

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.

[knor (Kai)]

@St.Roymond

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.

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.