Where are the young earthers?

There seem to be a number of individuals posting on EvCForum who claim to be young-earth creationists. I presume that some of them support this on a "scientific" basis (think that the science of dating the earth can be demonstrated to be wrong scientifically and that YEC should be taught in science classes) not just that God fools us by making it impossible to come to anything but an old-earth conclusion.Are there any here who take this view?Only prophex has posted anything very recently and what s/he has posted hasn't been on the topics discussed. Navy posted a little but didn't really seem to address the issues.Those who I have been assuming hold this young earth view like Navy and Ark are busy going on about the big bang instead. Since none of us (almost) really, really understand the physics involved it seems a bit futile to go on about it.Why is it that those who profess young earth don't want to deal with the evidence about the age of the earth.Now what I'd like in response is NOT a discussion of the age of the earth or the evidence. There are lots of threads for that.I'd just like to know why the YEC'ers are avoiding this area to such a great extent. Is it perhaps a bit too cut and dried and a bit too hard to argue with?

bump

In a word, yes.YEC are in a bind. They have a theological commitment to a form of biblical literalism which is inconsistent with science.The empirical basis for confidence in assertions that they cannot accept is clear, unambiguous, inarguable.If they don't really know or understand science, and have never actually discussed the matter with someone who knows what they are talking about, then they often have a confidence in the materials put out by professional creationists, and will want to argue the matter. The resulting massacre is a bit off-putting.For creationists who do understand a bit of science, they don't usually do any better. Refuting pseudoscience is actually fun and very educational. Lots of people like it, and many are good at it.Any creationist who attempts to make some kind of stand in an open discussion forum draws engagement like flies to honey. Even the professional creationists, with excellent scientific qualifications and a history of successful writing (in terms of sales) for creationism, get the same treatment. If a Sarfati or a Batten or a Behe or a Milton or a Humphreys or any such actually shows up in one of these public forums, we evolutionists just love it!The professionals, of course, often score debating points against amateur involvement from folks who think they know all the science they need to refute creationists. You can often end up by making some bad faux pax that a well informed creationist can recognize and address.The problem is that they also get engagement from folks who have scientific qualifications as good or better than any creationist, and a depth of experience in the relevant areas, and who will swiftly wipe the floor with them. The most a creaionist can hope for is that the discussion gets too esoteric for others to see how badly they've done.I've seen a couple of cases of the heavy hitters from creationism showing up in a debate forum. They don't last long. Someone who can't even recognize the arrows sticking out of their chest may hang around (hello, arkathon) but the professionals know too much for that.End result, ravening hoards of debaters with a taste for creationism, who descend with enthusiasm and glee on any creationist who makes a peep with any substantive empirical content.You do. I do it. We'll keep doing it.It is not being unfair or unreasonable. It is just a direct consequence of the fact that they are profoundly, completely, utterly, and obviously wrong.Cheers -- Sylas

Of course, I agree with you Sylas (who wouldn't ).But what I wanted in this thread was some discussion from the YEC'ers that are here. Not directly about the age of the earth but about why they don't post on it.We know they are very wrong but they don't. They think they have proof positive that all the dating is wrong and the earth is scientifically proven to be only 6,000 years old. So why wouldn't they jump on one of the other threads in this forum?The issues are a bit technicall but nothing as esoteric and difficult as current cosmology and relativity. Why take on stuff like that but avoid the simple (comparitively) stuff like counting layers and varves and ice?Obviously, the ones you speak of who know they don't have any good arguments aren't here. They are staying away (maybe lurking). But our somewhat arrogant visitors like Navy can't be that cowardly, can they?It is of little value to discuss evolution until the stage is set for it to play out on. None of us would accept it if we thought the earth was only 6,000 years old. So why don't they just jump on the dates?I wanted their explanations for that. Yours I agree with until I hear otherwise from one or more of them.

Well, the hoards of ravening evolutionists are an understandable turn-off. But hey... I can mentally pick apart what we do that might be a bit discouraging; but I'm guessing.I also would like to hear reasons why we don't get many arguments being made here in relating to age of the earth. What puts you off, YEC friends? I promise to listen rather than argue if someone is willing to tell us your own reasons for not posting here.Cheers -- Sylas

It occurs to me that we could handle the ravening hoards problem by having a topic in the great debate forum. With just one designated evo and as many creo's who wanted to jump in.Guess who I nominate as the designated evo, Sylas?

I find the mental picture of ravening hoards very amusing.Ravening hordes, OTOH ,,,

I wouldn't mind being accosted by raven haired hordes ...

Smart asses!!!

quote:

---

I'd just like to know why the YEC'ers are avoiding this area to such a great extent.

---

In all honesty, I do avoid such debate. Usually because I cannot contend with the evidence being presented by many Evolutionists. Really, I would love to hold a discussion but my knowledge on Dating and/or other methods used for calculating the Earth's age is not up to par. (With the help of the recent Abby Lever, this variable is diminishing.) I have not found many facts that would support the theories commonly held by YE's, of flaws in dating and such. Sometimes many things, that through logic I reach, are not concrete, so why present the observations? Overall, my time here is usually spent debating ethics or biblical matters, which is utterly sad...

---

The earth is flat.

What evidence is that.

What evidence? That is in the other topics on this forum. This topic I'd like to see kept to discussing why there is so litte creationist interest in the topics.Have a look at these:
Age Correlations and an Old Earth
Greenland Ice CoresTo see the a small portion of the evidence.

an honest response deserves respect.

enjoy your quest.

---

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

I certainly agree. Such honesty is not common enough but very refreashing.However, it is hard for me to understand someone not wanting to poke into the whole question a bit further if there is any hint that the information one is being given might be very, very wrong.

quote:

---

However, it is hard for me to understand someone not wanting to poke into the whole question a bit further if there is any hint that the information one is being given might be very, very wrong.

---

Maybe so, but a logical conclusion vs. compiled evidence?Which one would stand? Of course the evidence.

---

The earth is flat.