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, it could be ID that's true, a modified version of evolution or some new theory nobody has yet come up with.
If you disprove ALL the (currently) available 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?

I've read the Answers in Genesis site. I've yet to see a scientific pro-creation (as opposed to anti-evolution) argument.
Please use the edit function to post one.

Answer 1

We interpret evidence differently. Everyone has axioms, things you assume to be true without proof. Without them, nothing could get done. A creationist assumes that the Bible is true. Going from that assumption, they then interpret evidence (the earth, fossils, etc.) For instance, animals must be buried quickly if they're going to fossilize. Otherwise, animals will eat the flesh and insects will eat the marrow, and the bones will be crushed by other animals. The Flood is an adequate explanation for how animals could be buried quickly.

Evolutionists simply interpret evidence differently bc they have different axioms about the past. One evolutionist assumption is that of uniformitarianism, that the processes that are going on now have been going on at the same rate since they began. However, no one was there to observe this, so if the assumed rate is wrong, it can drastically change how long we think the process has occurred.

Answer 2

Scientifically no, There hasn't been a YEC article published in any peer reviewed scientific journal for at least a century.

What you get when distill the waffle is a few random odds and ends. Eg. "The Sea isn't salty enough" mistaken assumption about the rate of salinity aquired over time.
"Fossils laid down by flood" yet are overlain by structures built before the supposed flood.
"Human foot prints and dinosaur tracks" Just plain wrong.
Other than that it's pretty much wall to wall anti-science ranting.

Answer 3

There are solid scientific proofs for most aspects of evolutionary theory. YEC literature focuses on those aspects that science isn't yet too sure about.
The theory of evolution, like any scientific theory, gets modified when new findings come up.

Answer 4

Religion and creationists needs scientific validation desperately. Science , however does not need another fictional interpretation of existing proofs. The reckless pursuit of scientific credibility has created the `God of the Gaps`, filling gaps in existing knowledge with spurious pseudo-science, and declaring, " God did this". This pursuit of scientific creds` has given us, Noah, 6 day creation, YE, ID, and countless `God did it` theories, as religion seeks "to go where no man has gone before".

Answer 5

The so-called "proofs" for creationism are usually filled with techno-babble. These proofs use long impressive sounding words and combine fact with fiction in an attempt to blind the ill-educated. In many cases, the "scientist" displays an almost total lack of scientific knowledge and understanding.

most of these so-called scientists are fundamentalist xtians desparate to make their point even by lying if needed. They should be ashamed of themselves for promulgating superstition and falsehood in place of education and understanding - but then, they probably get a "rake-off" from the fundamentalist clergy who are just as dishonest. The intellectual equivalent of a suicide bomber.

Answer 6

YEC for sure have somewhat a bias to their perspectives and also you've were given to allow for this - even as they recent some 'medical arguments' hostile to evolution, you ought to envision them elsewhere. i have yet to locate this way of that has been both medical and used properly. As to the technological information for identity - there is no longer any. identity is mainly an answer to promote faith as if it were technological information and to discredit the medical theories that bypass hostile to their non secular perspectives. it isn't a medical idea itself. the acceptable info to diminish back this view up is that no longer a unmarried medical paper has been revealed in a peer-evaluate medical mag. no longer one. no longer merely have none been revealed, yet none were recommend to be revealed. Why is this? it truly is ordinary. it is because their 'idea' should be ripped aside with assistance from the scientists and go away them as a giggling inventory. So it truly is a lot more effective for them to cite 'technological information' that has no longer been scientifically examined.

Answer 7

The whole so called creationist myth is just that a story dreamed up by religious lunatics to try and explain something that there tiny brains cannot understand. 99.99999% of creationists are Americans and so I can understand them believing such trash as they are genetic morons and mongrels but for any one who claims to be English to believe such rot is unbelievable.

Answer 8

Their arguments against evolution are in any case an irrelevance-I'm not aware of one creationist argument that actually poses problems for biologists, so why they waste their time I don't know.

Answer 9

None that stand up to scientific logic and testing.

Answer 10

None. Lots of pseudoscience.