In my local town centre, every wednesday, there are a group of YEC's that place a board and do some drawings showing that evolution is false and all lies and the usual PRATT's. Since I had some spare time lately I thought I would go down and try to debate/talk some sense into them.
Long story short, they brought in a gentleman who has a degree in geography and seems to know a lot about geology. Now unfortunatly the most geology I have ever done was for one year as a wild card course in South Africa about 9 years back so my geology was rusty.
We started having a discussion about the biblical flood and modern geology and he was using all the usual YEC tactics. Dating is flawed, Grand Canyon, etc etc. So instead of him trying to tear apart modern geology I simply asked him this, if all of our radiometric dating techniques are so flawed, wouldn't the YEC's need an independant method of dating (or a few). Wouldn't this strengthen their position that the earth is as young as they say it is? Instead of saying that radiometric dating has supposed flaws, shouldn't they be working on new methods?
His answer was thus, that they already knew the ages of the strata/fossils and so forth from biblical chronology and hence didn't need any new dating methods.
My question is, wouldn't it be correct in assuming that the YEC position would indeed need new, independant dating techniques and if so, have any been modelled? or tested?
Also, he asked me to look at http://biblicalgeology.net/ for any questions I might have, but so far I haven't found anything to discuss YEC dating techniques.
Only the young earthers need new dating techniques (most of the ID crowd are old earthers).
But more importantly they need a GOOD explanation for all the dating methods that produce results they don't like.
Well this is what I still don't understand. How can they go around spouting supposed inconsistencies in things like geology, cosmology, evolutionary biology and so on, and yet not provide a shred of evidence to back up their position?
I'm pretty new to the debating of creationists and I know its a futile process, but how can you debate someone about science when they provide no evidence? Yet they can readily refute science that has been shown to work over and over and over again. It boggles my mind!
It is hard for folks trained in science to grasp this, but religious belief trumps scientific evidence in their minds.
They know the answers already, and if science comes up with answers to the contrary science is just wrong. They don't really care why science is wrong--that's a problem for scientists to figure out.
I think this is my major problem, having studied science and being a recent science graduate, I can't seem to understand their actions. It seems that these YEC's want creation science to be taught in the science classroom and yet they can't provide any science to back it up. It boggles my mind!
Are there no YEC's on these boards that can try to defend their position with any techniques/methods?
- One that is consistent with the given age. For example, the accumulation of salt in the ocean gives a maximum age consistent with a young earth. This was in fact my very first thread at EvC, and if you want to discuss it you could dig up my old thread and we could start off from there.
- One that points to the given age. For example, the helium diffusion in zircon crystals experiment done by Humphreys and Baumgardner falls into this category.
As the salt issue is being addressed, I took a look at the zircon one, and there is a massive essay on talkorigins, Zircon - Talkorigins, which discusses this in length, unfortunatly I don't have the time, nor the relevant understanding to read through this essay.
Back on topic though, what I want to find out is, not if there are problems with current geology and certain issues you think it might have, but what DATING methods YEC's can use, ones that correlate to a minimum age of 4350 or 6000 years.
Take RAZD's Correlations topic for instance, is there a similar YEC one? Would the YEC dating techniques show correlations between C14 dating, tree-rings, lake varves and so forth? Or would new, independent dating methods need to be employed by YEC's?
They have this page (http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth) where they pretty much regrouped a whole lot of subjects they write about all in one list, but it's a mixed bag. Some relate pretty well with the age of earth such as it's magnetic field, salt in oceans, etc. and could be regrouped into a thread similar to RAZD's, while others are very peripheric; for example ''DNA in ancient fossils'' (as Taq said, just because you find something young on the earth doesn't mean the earth is young)
Slevesque, these are the same old pratts that are shown everywhere... All they do is show 'what ifs'. I mean they're still using magnetic decay as a 'proof'?
By throwing a bunch of pratts into a list does nothing to show the earth is 6000 years old, all it does is show a list of things that YEC have tried to use to show the earth is 6000 years old, and failed.
If, on the other hand, you could show using various independant methods for instance, that every stratigraphic layer was 4350 years old as consistent with the flud, and all fossils found within those layers was 4350 years old. That would be an interesting case. The case of 'what ifs' doesn't work. If you claim the earth is 6000 years old, the burden of proof is on you. And EVERY dating method you employ needs to be consistent with this. You can not pick and choose.
Maybe if you stay here long enough, and discuss with the right approach you will be able to see how I explain all the pieces fit into a recent flood model. But to do this, we just have to discuss each piece at a time.
Oh, I'm here every day
And I would love for you to do a RAZD like correlations thread or post.
So perhaps my answer to your question would be yes, ID creationists would need a different dating methodology. I'm not sure whether there is enough known or enough to be assumed about the pre-flood earth and atmosphere to implement such a methology.
Well thank you for at least clarifying an answer. Every other YEC I have spoken to has completely avoided the subject, and for good reason I think.
Now on to the dating methods, as drjones pointed out, every current correlative dating method would need to be shown to be false. I've read a lot of the literature about 'accelerated radioactive decay' and all that nonsense and seen it refuted many times.
So in truth I think it would be very easy for a YEC to use correlative dating methods to prove the literal genisis, especially the flood, 100% correct.
Find the flood layer. Everything under it is pre-flood, everything on top is post-flood. So everything post-flood; every fossil, every piece of organic material, EVERYTHING, would be 4350 years or younger.
Now this is what I don't understand Buz. Why do YEC try their hardest, and spend so much time and effort trying to refute things such as the geological column, evolution, cosmology, aboigenisis and so forth, when all they need to do to show they are correct is this rather easy bit of science?
For instance, there is a website called Tas Walkers Bibical Geology where he has obviously spent a lot of time trying to get the geological column to fit in with the genisis account. And yet when it comes to dating, all he talks about is problems with the current dating methods.
I'm sure it would serve the YEC a lot more to actually use science to strengthen their position instead of refuting it...or has it not been done because, shock horror, they have no dating methods that actually fit in with the 4350-year-old flood timeline.