Where are the young earthers?

Of course! However, complex issues require some degree of careful scrutiney of the evidence. Usually we can't do that directly howselves but have to do it a bit by proxy. We have to apply what we already know and logic and reasoning to the issue.To adopt a position on something which as somewhat broad implications for oneself without some examination seems odd to me.For a Christian there seem to be a lot of choices about what particular 'sect' to adopt as representative of oneself. The literalist sects (a minority) have some pretty clear positions. If they are as wrong as some of hear believe then they are positions which damage the Christian faith as a whole.If I was a Christian I would want to put the effort into examining those positions enough to satisfy myself that I wasn't supporting something that is very flawed and, worse, supporting those who lie to maintain a particular political, religious position of power.For me any of these particular positions on scientific issues isn't, as I see it, nearly as big a deal. I like to see into the controversies that go on all the time at the leading edges of research because they are interesting. I don't have much personal concern about which way they come out.For example, are Neanderthals in my european ancestory or not? It doesn't shake me up much one way or the other. I like to understand what both sides are basing their present hypothoses on and will wait for it to be sorted out. I'd kind of like to think they are in my genes just cause it would be a bit cool but don't really have to change anything however it comes out.The age of the earth is very basic to a package of beliefs that the literalists hold. I'd expect them to want to know enough about it to understand the controversy. In fact this literalism has cost some individuals their faith. If I was a Christian bringing up my kids to be both Christian and thinking individuals I would worry about exposing them to something that might damage their faith in the future. If the young earth position is wrong and I teach them that Christianities truth depends on the age of the Earth I may be doing them a large disservice.

I'm intrigued, Prophex. Are you saying that you don't want to look at the evidence of an old Earth in case you are able to see that it might be right and that the YEC theory might be wrong?That leads me on to ask how it would affect you and your faith if you came to the decision that YECs were wrong. Way back at the dawn of time I realised that the Genesis account wasn't for me because of the evidence. I struggled with this because the Bible was the "Word of God". I wanted to keep my faith, but I didn't know how to reconcile these two seemingly mutually exclusive positions. Then a Roman Catholic priest and a Church of Scotland minister both pointed out, independently of each other, that God didn't write the Bible, a man did and even if God had written it, we have to depend on no mistakes being made in copies, no mistakes being made in translations and no-one down the line adding a wee bit of extra colour to make it more exciting and miraculous.I've come to the decision that I have to go where the evidence leads because God gave me intelligence and the responsibility to use it to the best of my ability. To miss all the wonders on this planet and in the Universe because they don't fit in with some ancient words in Genesis is so very sad. Who knows, maybe the fossil record or rock dating is God's way of letting us know just how it is so that we don't rely on possibly erroneous, manmade accounts?I apologise to Ned if this seems to be a bit off topic, but I was in that sort of position once and recognise how difficult it can be to look at solid evidence which goes against the very core of your beliefs. Please be gentle with me

I think it is very on topic, Trixie. It is just expressing the other side of the viewpoint I'd like to hear about. It is the one which makes sense to me. It would be interesting to try to understand the other one.I notice that other YEC'ers may not have the courage or honesty that Prophex is displaying.

Ned, here's a starter for the rats and the warfarin
http://www.biology.duke.edu/rausher/warfarin.htm

Thanks Trixie.and bump to those who aren't afraid.

quote:

---

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...

---

--If you ever get into radiogenic isotope geology, you will understand quite well why it is a difficult issue to discuss. The simple fact is that, in order for the earths geology to be the product of a shorter timescale than that given by a uniformitarian analysis (let alone a MUCH shorter timescale), the decay constant, just can't be constant. Everything we know about natural physics directly contradicts such a scenario. Thus, it is inherently a miracle. Scientists don't like working with the miraculous because the whole point of invoking miracles is to sidestep potential falsification. I am not implying that a period of accelerated radioisotopic decay is not potentially falsifiable, but I am implying that I have yet to find a definitive example of how such an occurence could be potentially falsified.--Furthermore, while it might not be so difficult to invoke a potentially falsifiable episode of accelerated radioisotopic decay, the problem is complicated and compounded by the effects of such a situation. The heat generated is so intense, I can't even begin to envision a viable mechanism by which it could be transported and still preserve the complexities of the geological record. Therefore, it would seem that more miracles may need to be stacked upon each other. Personally, if YECism requires this, I'm going to find myself falling on the other side of the fence.Cheers,
-Chris Grose

You may want to add another miracle -- that all methods reach similar results even when they come from very divergent sources and methods, including annual layers produced by several mechanisms that extend back 567,700 years. See discussion of this on Age Correlations and an Old Earth. You might also want to read Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens

---

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

Don't go wandering off into the actual issues. Not on this thread. I'm just trying to get some idea of why no one who believes in a young earth can or will even try to defend the idea.We have some number of young earthers posting here now but they stay of the dating forum for some reason. I know what the evo guess is to why they hide but I'd be interested in what they say.

And another problem is that ALL the examples of radioactive decay used in dating rocks have to speed up proportionally. There's really no plausible physical method to do that.Yet another problem is theological. Without a reasonable explanation of why God would choose to raise decay rates in such a way as to create a large body of misleading evidence the argument essentially uses God as a generator of ad hoc excuses and implies that God is a deceiver.

My opinion is that young earth creationist, at first, tend to assume that the evolutionists and old earthers have the same understanding of science as they do. Once this illusion is done away with, YEC's soon realize that they are arguing about the practice of science with people who actually practice science. I don't know how many times I have read "this is bad science" from people who have never used scientific methodologies, nor would they recognize correct methodology if it hit them over the head. This is not true for every YEC, but I have seen these characteristics among quite a few.TrueCreations realization that for dating methods to be wrong the decay constants HAD to have changed. Although I am not trying to put words in his mouth, but the corroboration between dating methodologies and independently measured non-radiometric measures is astounding. Also, Prophex's realization that there is strong evidence backing an old earth is refreshing. We are not expecting him/her to completely drop the YEC theory, but understanding the amount of data and techniques that have gone into measuring the age of the earth is a step in the right direction. What we want to know from the YEC camp is how we could have interpretated the data so horribly as to be off by billions of years. What kind of data is out there that falsifies an old earth? Is there data that that can only be explained if the earth is 6,000 years old? These are the questions buring in the minds of us evolutionists. We would be open to any attempt to address these questions. We aren't the Athiest Nazi's that many make us out to be. Any honest attempt to deal with real data will be heard. But remember this, any attack on your arguments are just that, an attack on your arguments. In science, you have to learn how to separate your personal feelings from your pet theories. Otherwise, your emotions will lead you down a dead end.

And still we have few of the young earthers willing to even say why they won't take on the dating issue.Arkathon carries on about a 6,000 year old universe when he can't handle the very old earth in it. Did it come from the merged non-spiritual realm and has always been in that realm?

quote:

---

And another problem is that ALL the examples of radioactive decay used in dating rocks have to speed up proportionally. There's really no plausible physical method to do that.

---

--There is no viable physical mechanism to alter the decay rate in the first place--this is easily substantiated and is, conclusively, an inconsistency. That the various radioisotopes have to accelerate proportionally is less well established (since there is no specific mechanism of accelerated radioisotopic decay to analize anyways), but it doesn't really matter.--Of course, the proportionality of radioisotopic dating methods is one of the most demanding reasons that support my conclusion that an altered decay rate is an absolute requirement in considering an alternative view of earth history.

quote:

---

Yet another problem is theological. Without a reasonable explanation of why God would choose to raise decay rates in such a way as to create a large body of misleading evidence the argument essentially uses God as a generator of ad hoc excuses and implies that God is a deceiver.

---

--Well, it would certainly appear ad hoc, but it is also possible that concluding this is premature. For instance, an acceleration in radioisotopic decay could initiate runaway subduction. Of course however, as alluded to in my last post the heat released in continental crust from 500 My of decay is simply ridiculous.Cheers,
-Chris Grose[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-29-2004]

If you consider playing about with universal constants like the strengths of the forces to be "plausible" then it is at least possible to accelerate radioactive decay. But even that will not make the various decay rates increase proprotionately. So far as I knwo the only way to do that is to individually adjust all the relevant decay rates which has a low plausibility and theologically points to a deceptive God.But your claim that it is "premature" to concluce that accelerated radioactive decay is an "ad hoc" argument is insane. Aside from the fact that runaway subduction is itself not supported by the evidence, aside form the fact that runaway subduction does not require accelerated decay rates in itself the judgement of whether an argument is ad hoc or not is a judgement that necessarily applies to the current time. Even if evidence DID turn up at some time in the future, right now accelerated decay is still ad hoc. It is quite impossible that the judgement could be premature.

N,Probably, YEC's are becoming aware of the old earth creation, and young earth restoration version of interpreting Genesis. That is, the most straightforward way of interpreting Genesis, is that there was a very old creation, a fairly old destruction of creation, and a "young" miraculous restoration of creation, that preserved the aged quality of the original. A good YECer of course enjoys knowing His God does miracles that fix a damaged creation, their own life included. But, when God heals the broken arm of a 70 year old, miraculously, the healed arm looks 70 years old. So then, what's the truth? Is the "new" arm as old as the healing? (minutes, for those who witnessed it). Or 70 years?.Stephen

It seems you're almost being ignored Ned. I think part of the problem is lack of YEC's. When I was officially YEC, I would ask a few questions and try some stuff in the "dating" section, but I still had a big lack of knowledge about various dating methods. I suspect a lot of YEC's don't bother with the age section because it is a bit of a belief issue. I kind of still think the earth is younger than suspected and have questions about that, but maybe, like me - YEC's do not feel like this is the most important part of the argument, and maybe they would rather talk about evolution. When you take a YEC postition you don't automatically become aware of the issues between the ages, maybe the younger YEC's avoid dating because of this.But certainly there are questions to be asked. For example - why is carbon 14 found in dino's? Are they young or is the dating wrong?
Are these the inquiries you seek from YEC's? Maybe I could resume my position for arguments sake. In fairness, they/we are up against it, the stars for example, how do we justify their age> now that's tough, and even AIG seems to agree they are old, hence the gravitational time dilation theory. Thing is we still believe God can do miracles, that may be the crucial difference when dealing with evidence. As for making out God's a liar that is just silly, unaiformatarianism thinking is the culprit not God.