Where are the young earthers?

That's the sort of thing I was wondering about.I still don't "get" why a YEC would want to ignore the age issue. When even other creationists exist which disagree with them, you'd think they might wonder.In addtion, they are keen on putting evolution down. As I noted, a young earth would sure make it tough to accept evolution as we know it. Why not go for the base?I don't understand how they would use miracles. That starts to get back to God 'faking it', doesn't it?

Lol, I do know someone who "goes for the base" by arguing a young earth. John Mckay (Geologist) at Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied. I agree with him that time = death and age, and I have some concerns about evolution taking such a long time, but that's another topic.I guess the YEC's are facing a bit of a complex area. I hope I helped but to be honest your guess is as good as mine. Maybe the answer is simple - YEC's are hard to find, especially on evc forums.

Well, we have the likes of Arkathon arguing on about cosmology and physics by making up fantasies. Those areas are pretty darn complex.I'm inclined to think that the reason the YEC's we do have (and those passing through) avoid this area is because it is less complex than the cosmology or evolutionary theory itself.It is simple enough that it is hard to obfuscate around the obvious errors in YEC reasoning.

The dating is wrong for two reasons:(1) Contamination of the sample during the collection and preservation process (cleaners, shellac or other preservatives, etcetera) adding "modern" C-14 to the sample.(2) Carbon 14 is radioactive and decays according to its half-life (5730 years) like all other radioactive elements. What this means is that after one half-life there is half as much of the element than at the beginning point. Keep cutting it in half for every period of time marked by the half-life and it quickly gets too small a quantity to use for measurement, but that doesn't mean that it gets too small to measure. To have a molecule of C-14 left after 65 million years the original sample would have needed 11,345 molecules ... on average. Searching through thousands of samples would also divide the necessary original amount in each fossil by the same number as now {all the fossils} become the sample in question. It is just a matter of time until a positive result is found.The usual (false) argument is carbon dating coal ... which you could consider to be "dinosaur vegetation" ... as it gets around the first cause of errors.See http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/carbon.html for additional information.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

Well, Cosmology is indeed complex. You're right though, there are too many passers by. Was 14gipper a YEC? Where is s/he? Newbie YEC's I suspect are teenagers mostly, who argue against science with religion, usually, the class guys like John Mckay are rarer than a preserved T rex with wings and a guitar.Abbyleever, I see that the problem with carbon14 is concerned with preservation. Fair enough, that'll do me, consider me refuted. Thxs for the link.Oh, welcome to the forum....i'm a bit late with that welcome ofcourse. [This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 03-30-2004]

I would say from reading all the posts, that I agree a great deal with Mike. Hopefully he won't take a feeling from that whether it be fear or joy.I have read articles detailing different reasons for a young earth. I have not read many from the evolutionary point of view. Quite quickly said, I simply don't have the time to entertain a divergent point of view. Call it what you will, you're more than allowed. However, that is the simple matter of the truth.I teeter between desiring a factual based situation; however, I enjoy other topics more so.

you're welcome. s'cool

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Ned, most fundamental creationists like myself believe there was a vapor canopy over the earth before the flood which allowed for such different factors in the elements of the atmosphere and the earth so as to render the dating methods erroneous.As you are likely aready aware of, I am not necessarily a yec as I believe the 24 hour day began at day five, following the creation of the sun, moon and likely the stars of our galaxy on day four. So there is no given measurement of the first four days. I do believe the animals and humans to be young.When I've argued on this basis in science threads, I've been considered in violation of forum rules for believing in the existence of a spiritual dimension in the universe and debating on that basis. So imo, there's your answer. The forum doesn't allow for creo-scientific debate on these things because in our science that existing other dimension is denied by secularist science to which the administration of this forum subscribes.

Anytime you can prove that dimension exists, and explain the mechanism by which the undetectable could influence the material world, we'll be happy to entertain your theories on the subject.Until then it's just the worst sort of mentally lazy ad-hoccery.

CF, when you become ideologically capable of assimilating the evidence I and others have already supplied, we'll talk about more.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

You mean, when I'm ready to accept circular reasoning, shoddy methodology, and argument from ignorance?Well, sure, at that point I could very well have to accept your reasoning. The problem is, I'd have to accept all reasoning, no matter how faulty, and then how would I know what was true or not?If I abandon the methodology that keeps me from believing in garbage to accept your beliefs, I'm gonna have to do it for everybody.You seem to believe that I reject the supernatural because I want to. Nothing could be farther from the truth - I'd love to live in a world of magic and angels and demons presided over by a loving god. The reason I reject that stuff is simply because none of it is true.

CF, I pray your spiritually blind eyes will open to find the saviour before they experience their last closure from this life to enter that spiritual dimension of the next devoid of an advocate between you and your creator.

I appreciate the thought and accept it in the spirit of its offering. In the same spirit I hope that somebody can convince you to give up the mental crutches that prevent you from seeing the possibilities of a universe whose purpose is up to you.

Even if the "vapour canopy" existed (for which there is no evidence) the fact is that it would not affect the evidence used for dating.So what you are saying is that most YEC's can't be bothered to understand what they are talking about and instead offer a ridiculous excuse so that they can ignore the evidence.

Actually, very few creationists today believe in a vapor canopy or any variant therof. There are two major problems. Adding any significant amount of water to the atmosphere requires raising the temperature and pressure of the atmosphere way above that which life as we know it (except maybe for a few hot-spring bacteria) can exist. And getting any large amount of water from the atmosphere or above down to the surface of the Earth releases so much energy that Noah and the rest of the living things in the world would have been instantly cremated. There's even some Biblical evidence against it; as AIG says at the reference given below:

quote:

---

Psalm 148:4 seems to speak against the canopy theory. Written after the flood, this refers to "waters above the heavens" still existing, so this cannot mean a vapor canopy that collapsed at the flood.

---

The only way that a vapor canopy works is miracles. And, once you've introduced miracles, two things happen:1. There's no need to postulate a vapor canopy (for which there's no evidence) any more; just say that the supposed effects of the vapor canopy were miracles and you have a much simpler hypothesis.2. You've given up on it being scientific and there's no way you'll get it taught in U.S. public schools (or any reputable school) as science. This is not acceptable to many creationists.See the ICR's SENSITIVITY STUDIES ON VAPOR CANOPY TEMPERATURE PROFILES, see AIG's Noah's Flood - Where did the water come from? (scroll down to "A major problem with the canopy theory"), see what Walt Brown's site has to say (scroll to the bottom of the page and search for "vapor canopy"), and read the hsitory of the idea at The Demise and Fall of the Water Vapor Canopy: A Fallen Creationist Idea.