Replies

Ok - let us exclude the evidence of the evolutionists.

That still leaves the following fields of science that have evidence that the Earth is > 6000 years old.

Astronomy
Botany
Geology
Physics

Along with quite a few more that I do not currently have time to name.

I guess what I am trying to say is that for YEC to be correct nearly every aspect of current scientific thinking has to be, not only incorrect, but incorrect in a way that is almost beyond description.

Now if you will excuse me I have a .net application that I have to work on.

"I guess what I am trying to say is that for YEC to be correct nearly every aspect of current scientific thinking has to be, not only incorrect, but incorrect in a way that is almost beyond description."

It wouldn't be the first time.

Take for example: Bloodletting.

Lots of people were cured by bloodletting... permanently.

I was not making a case for the exclusion of any empirical evidence whatsoever.

Evidence for YEC is not limited to any one field of science.

You are most graciously excused!
(I enjoy writing an occasional app myself)

I guess what I am trying to say is that for YEC to be correct nearly every aspect of current scientific thinking has to be, not only incorrect, but incorrect in a way that is almost beyond description.

And not only that, but incorrect all in the same way and by the same amount. That's the part that gets me--to believe in a young earth, you have to not only nitpick each line of evidence individually but find some way to dismiss the fact that they all point to the same answer.

Astronomy Botany Geology Physics

What would you say was the very best evidence from these 4 areas, and how would you rank each of them on a scale of "Plausible" to "unquestionably certain" ?

I guess what I am trying to say is that for YEC to be correct nearly every aspect of current scientific thinking has to be, not only incorrect, but incorrect in a way that is almost beyond description.

I don't think that's exactly true. At least it's an exaggeration. Or perhaps I misunderstand your statement, since I'm not sure what you mean by scientific thinking. Your scientific thinking? That of another? Me? Someone you trust?

Anyway, the majority of each of the majority of sciences could function just as well without old-earth ideas. Think about it: Rocks are still made up of the same things, they are still hard, chemistry still works the same way, physics still work the same way -- really the only part of the physical/empirical sciences that even relate to the age of the earth or origins is when they are used to try to prove what happened long long ago, far far away. I will concede that the science of radiometric dating is a science which would have to change in order for the earth to be young, sort of like the science of acting would change if all the theaters went out of business, since the whole field is designed to prove an old earth. :-) (By the way, I'd love to try some radiocarbon dating myself just for kicks, if anyone knows of a DIY site explaining how it's done. My particle detector quite happily detects alpha particles so it ought to work.)

I have always been fascinated with science (as in empirical sciences) since I was a child, and I enjoy learning. Thanks very much.

-Jesse