Young Universe Logic Against Observations

I began to ponder what sort of arguments could be made to contradict what we have found in the last 100 years or so. Before the internet it was easier to be oblivious of history because a trip to the library was time consuming but in this day and age where facts are so easily available I would love to hear some young universe arguments to explain what most others accept as fact.Playing devil's advocate for a second lets skip the possible gap of 3 1/2 billion years between the formation of our planet and the estimated earliest formation of life on this planet. Lets skip the next 598 million years of possible life that existed on this planet and also skip the next 2 million years of possible hominoid evolution.Lets just talk about the last 50,000 years.I would like to hear from any young universe believers explaining to me what arguments they could have against the facts that are so well accepted for the events of just the last 50,000 years.To make it simple I have 3 links out of thousands and would ask any young universe proponent to spend 5 or 10 minutes reviewing these links and offering up their argument in a logical manner.http://campus.northpark.edu/.../WebChron/World/Foraging.htmlOrigins of 'modern' behavior might be linked | EurekAlert!http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/History_n2/a.htmlLet me close in saying that not all creationists are young universe believers because many are able to logically conclude that historical religious texts must have been written using a degree of freedom to permit the writings to be comprehended by the masses at the time of writing. To accept historical texts purely literally is difficult for me to comprehend when it seems so evident that these texts had to be written in such a way as to be comprehendible by the generation of people that would be reading them. I think the young universe proponents are doing an injustice to those trying to argue for creationism.Just my cents
Rebate forms available upon request.

Your post really is just the 3 links. The rest is not really to the point.You aren't, by the guidelines, allowed to just use links like that.You make your own arguement and then, if needed, use some links for support. Please try again.

I am sorry but I don't see how the post is different than many others. The forum guidelines require links to be used as supporting evidence. My point is that young universe proponents are unlikely to provide any valid logical arguments for the concepts in the three links provided. I was hoping to enlighten a few of them to think that maybe historical texts do not need to be taken so literally.My argument is that historical texts are partially figurative and not totally literal and were done so on purpose. The three links are supporting evidence out of an ocean of links for the sole purpose of obtaining the views from the young universe group as to their ideas on what really is considered very common knowledge, truth, or fact and why they are so quick to denounce it.If it does not go to forum, no sweat off my back I just felt that many young universe followers are not making the effort to do even the smallest amount of research into the wealth of accepted finding of the larger majority.

I'm afraid the topic is pretty vague. You'll just find that those that you are challenging will simply not respond. I'm not going to promote it but will leave it for other admins to have a look at.If you pick one particular point that supports an old universe, made it the topic title and discussed it a bit then there might be something that would work.

In your own words, describe the concepts in the three links provided, then present your arguments for or against those concepts. Include the links as references.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.