At what point does Young Earth Creationism (YEC) get labeled a "Conspiracy Theory"?

Question

For someone to believe in YEC, you have to think of the MASSIVE amount of misinformation that is being put out. Geological records being lied about, Biological differences (and more importantly similarities) being obfuscated, Geneticists not only lying, but completely inventing an entire discipline. We would have to have lied about how Atom's decay over long periods of time to establish the date of fossils. If that were true, our basic understanding of the Atom is completely wrong, and the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki (requiring MASSIVE amount of knowledge about atomic structure) likely would have had to been faked.

Thousands of scientific organizations, with almost no remaining dissent, would have to get every member (literally millions of people) in dozens of different cultures and languages to lie on paper and in person over and over.

Just how much more is required for someone to label a person who believes in obfuscation on that massive a scale, a Conspiracy Theorist?

Answer 1

The Old Earth Cabal (OEC) has warped your mind with its false teachings. The OEC uses tactics like "science" and "evidence" to lure the gullible into thinking that truth is what corresponds to reality.

Answer 2

I love your loaded words, glittering generalities, bandwagon, authority, and false analogy fallacies. And you have obviously not read much on what we believe. If you care to be educated, here are some good places to start:
http://www.trueorigin.org
http://www.answersingenesis.org
http://www.apologeticspress.org

But, that's probably what they said when some people started saying the world wasn't flat.

The majority of people used to believe that the world was flat; did that make it flat? The majority of doctors used to think they didn’t need to wash their hands before an operation; did that save the people they were infecting? And on and on... Those who discovered the truth and tried to teach differently were soundly rejected by their colleagues. And as it has been said, “The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

Neo-Darwinian evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who don’t know everything and who were not there. And history shows that the scientific establishment has been wrong time after time; that is why the science textbooks constantly have to be revised. Often, the bold pronouncements of secular scientists are contradicted years or even months later.

As Dr. Ross Olson said, “Even though the scientific method is supposed to encourage objectivity, some data get recorded and some get ignored, some articles get published and some get rejected—a lot depends on the very human motives of individual people. Even looking at the same data and the same articles, different observers can come to different conclusions. Great breakthroughs in science are not achieved only by the brilliant. They are shared by the honest and courageous who study the emperor’s new clothes and regard truth as more important than political correctness or a grant for further study. This does not mean that someone outside the herd is automatically right. But proper conclusions may be opposed by scholars with ulterior motives.”

Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup made an interesting statement: “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology...I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?”

From what I've seen, I have to agree with T. Wallace: “A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)”

Oh, and there are a lot more YECs than you realize (scroll down):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

And here is an article you need to read before you ask another uninformed question like you just did:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-creationists-be-real-scientists

Answer 3

Though I am not a rigid young earther (I don't believe anyone can dogmatically know how old the earth is young or old) I do see that mostly it all hinges on the dating methods and projected ages of the universe and how those are interpreted.
Geologists are predominantly uniformitarians and not catastrophists though more evidence in mega-floods, and asteroids hitting the Earth, and sudden unexplainable ancient climate changes, mountains created in relative blink of the eye, should begin to open their minds a little. Genetics proves common ancestry so I don't see your point. The small relative population of humans based on present birth and death rates is odd considering how long we are supposed to have been around. Hydro-plate theory does account for a lot of what we see in nature. The fossil record and frozen mammoths do indicate a big sudden flood.

I really think that because this is all schools teach is the only reason much evidence is interpreted through an evolutionary grid. It is a goal to teach our children evolution so they will interpret life through that mindset. Evolution is the mega belief of secular schools so why would you think they should interpret the evidence any different.

More and more scientists are coming up with evidence that need to consider catastrophic view points based on their discoveries. These tend to authenticate a Biblical view without their even trying.

Answer 4

Young Earth is derived by giving 24 hours to each day of creation when it could be epochs being described but that method is poor because the length of the days of creation is not given at first, although the order of evolution of universe and life is clearly defined and in accordance with scientific thought. Old Earth and modern scientific theory is better because it agrees with the Bible as well as the eyes and minds that God has given us. BUT Adam and Eve could be the first true men, that missing link between man and animal, the first with human consciousness and not just a smart monkey Wisdom: The Bible is always correct, but peoples interpretation of its meanings are often incorrect

Answer 5

True.

I think the freemasons running the world conspiracy theory is more likely than YEC.

It sounds about right.

Answer 6

It has been labeled that for about 50 years.

Answer 7

I was pretty sure it already was....

DAMN that Galileo! All that time locked in that tower, and there he was plotting the 9-11 attacks! AH! I knew it! WE must warn people! Think of your children, think of the terrorists! THE TERRORISTS!

Answer 8

At its invocation to support anything but its absurdity.

Answer 9

when it's not popular enough to be a religious sect...

Answer 10

Good point...

;-)