Scientific proofs in favour of Young Earth Creation?

Question

Reading through all the stuff on Young Earth Creationism ("YEC") I am struck by finding that most of the scientific arguments are AGAINST evolution.

Establishing the truth of YEC by refuting evolution fails unless you also show that YEC and Evolution are not just alternatives but the only available alternatives. Without that if you refute evolution you just show evolution to be false and do not show any particular other theory to be true. You leave the field open for YEC, but you don't get YEC ON the field.

Arguments FOR YEC I have seen have been readings from the Bible. This would mean that YEC is a purely religious theory.

Are there any scientific arguments positively in favour of YEC and not just anti-evolution?

To be clearer:

If evolution is true then YEC cannot be true.
However BOTH evolution and YEC could be false eg OEID "Old Earth Intelligent Design" and FIIK "Cough if I know"

Disproving evolution is neccessary but not SUFFICENT for a proof of YEC.

So what were looking for is evidence in positive favour off YEC.

Answer 1

Agreed! The default position on the failure of evolution is not the Genesis account, to put it succinctly.
Judging by their replies, the creationshits and the IDiots have chosen to deliberately misrepresent your question as an attack on the bible or perhaps they didn't read the question...
PS blimey 5,500 years old now.. the young earth is getting younger all the time!..An attack on the age of the earth is also a denial of the laws of radioactive decay..back to school for those who understand neither math or physics!

Answer 2

YEC of course have a bit of a bias to their views and you have to allow for this - when they present some 'scientific arguments' against evolution, you should check them elsewhere. I've yet to find one of these that has been both scientific and used correctly.

As to the science for ID - there isn't any. ID is primarily a means to promote religion as if it were science and to discredit the scientific theories that go against their religious views. It is not a scientific theory itself. The best evidence to back this view up is that not a single scientific paper has been published in a peer-review scientific journal. Not one. Not only have none been published, but none have been put forward to be published.

Why is this? That is simple. It's because their 'theory' would be ripped apart by the scientists and leave them as a laughing stock. So it's much better for them to quote 'science' that has not been scientifically tested.

Answer 3

The only good science gets published in peer reviewed scientific journals like Nature or Science. It isn't on a crappy website that takes a couple of hours to throw together. There is a mountain of evidence for evolution and it is the entire basis for all modern Biology.

There has never been a peer review article that supports ID or YEC published. This is because there is no evidence that is acceptable to a peer review process meaning that there is really no evidence at all.

Answer 4

None. Because if you believe in a YEC then evolution is impossible. A scientist will have to reject evolution if he takes the approach of the YEC.

Here is some evidence that proves a young earth.
I think the sun is one of the most convincing

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/earthage.html


Here his a recent discovery that proves evolution is false
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

Answer 5

Scientifically no, There hasn't been a YEC article revealed in any peer reviewed medical mag for a minimum of a century. What you get even as distill the waffle is a few random odds and ends. Eg. "the sea isn't salty adequate" incorrect assumption about the speed of salinity aquired through the years. "Fossils laid down with assistance from flood" yet are overlain with assistance from structures outfitted in the previous the meant flood. "Human foot prints and dinosaur tracks" merely undeniable incorrect. except that it is fairly a lot wall to wall anti-technological information ranting.

Answer 6

Young Earth and Creation Science is not science. Terrible research, faulty assumptions, bad logic, silly conclusions to try and prop up a mythological notion.

BTW Radio Carbon dating is good to about 20,000 years, Potassium-Argon dating is very accurate to 30 million years, and Uranium-Lead dating takes us all the way to the formation of the Earth 4.5 billion years ago.

Answer 7

Abdu'l-Bahá wrote:
"Moses taught that the world was brought into existence in the six days of creation. This is an allegory, a symbolic form of the ancient truth that the world evolved gradually. Darwin can refer to Moses for his theory of evolution. God did not allow the world to come into existence all at once, rather the divine breath of life manifested itself in the commanding Word of God, Logos, which engendered and begot the world. We thus have a progressive process of creation, and not a one-time happening. Moses' days of creation represent time spans of millions of years. From Pythagoras to ibn-i-Sina (known as Avicenna) to the 'faithful brothers of Basra', through Darwin and to the blessed Manifestations of the Bab and Bahá'u'lláh, both scholars and Prophets have testified to the progressive creative action of the Logos (divine breath of life). The Darwinian and monistic theories of evolution and the origin of species are not materialistic, atheisitic ideas; they are religious truths which the godless and the deluded have unjustifiably used in their campaign against religion and the Bible."

And again... interesting:
“...some of the sagacious men declare: We have attained to the superlative degree of knowledge; we have penetrated the laboratory of nature, studying sciences and arts; we have attained the highest station of knowledge in the human world; we have investigated the facts as they are and have arrived at the conclusion that nothing is rightly acceptable except the tangible, which alone is a reality worthy of credence; all that is not tangible is imagination and nonsense.
“Strange indeed that after twenty years training in colleges and universities man should reach such a station wherein he will deny the existence of the ideal or that which is not perceptible to the senses. Have you ever stopped to think that the animal already has graduated from such a university? Have you ever realized that the cow is already a professor emeritus of that university? For the cow without hard labor and study is already a philosopher of the superlative degree in the school of nature. The cow denies everything that is not tangible, saying, ‘I can see! I can eat! Therefore, I believe only in that which is tangible!’
“Then why should we go to the colleges? Let us go to the cow.”
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 360-361)

Answer 8

The proof against young-earth theories is overwhelming. People who still want to believe it will generally believe anything provided there's a cushy afterlife in it for them.

Answer 9

You need to go to school. Creationist and evolutionist look at the same data, they just interpret it from differing world views. A major stumbling block for evolution is time. Scientist can not verify a date beyond 5500 years. There is no factual date ascribed to anything older than this. There is only speculation. The very foundation for evolution is speculation. And, the very first move away from that base is speculative. Ever hear of 'modeling'? Check it out.

Answer 10

No.Creationist has nothing to back up themselves.