The YEC Hypothesis.

B

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The YEC hypothesis can be briefly stated as being based on the creation account in Genesis:

1) God creates the Universe, probably 6-7000 years ago, depending on which source scripture is used,

2) God causes life to arise on Earth in multiple "kinds" during the six days of creation,

3) Mankind rejects God's authority, causing what is popularly known as "the Fall".

4) After a few thousand years Mankind grows in sinfullness,

5) A global flood destroys all airbreathing animal life not preserved on Noah's Ark.

These are the major elements in Genesis which most YECs subscribe to.

--------------------

Fairly recently I discovered a possible way to resolve the apparent dilemma of how we can see stars billions of light years away in a universe that is only 6-7000 years old. This idea is generally based on the Big Bang idea that the coordinates of the universe expanded exponentially in the past, but this idea has a slight difference: it assumes that the expansion rate was slighter greater than that assumed by the Big Bang.

Scientists have been discovering much about the so-called "simple cell" in the past decade. One can get a feel for this by going through the "sticky" thread "Cell Trends Too" which talks about the discoveries since the year 2000.

It now appears that the three unsolved problems of evolutionary theory have been pushed back in time back beyond the Cambrian, which means before 99.99% of the fossils were laid down.

The three problems are of course: 1) the DNA/RNA/protein interrelated system, 2)
the sexual reproduction mechanism, and 3) the HOX gene switching mechanism which affects development of an embryo.

YECs believe that these are no "problem" at all if one assumes that Genesis was correct that God created multiple "kinds" of creatures that had the three "advanced capabilities" aready in place.
 
Mr Jack

Mr Jack

New member
Does the 'b' in 'bob b' stand for 'babbles'?

Your idea about starlight is babble; as was shown at length and you, predictably, ignored in the thread you started about it.

Your "hypothesis" is devoid of explanation, explanatory power and evidence. Those parts of it that are testable are falsified by the facts. The Earth is not 6,000-7,000 years old; a casual glance at the geological record is quite sufficient to prove that; from paleomagnetism, through radio-dating to stratiography and paleoglaciation. There was no flood; as demonstrated by everything from the geographic distribution of species, through the genetic data to the geological record - and never mind the simple impossibility of the myth. While it is - just about - possible that there are multiple ancestors for life, the fossil, morphological and genetic data we have is sufficient to demonstrate common ancestry for all vertebrates and a single common ancestor remains the best explanation for similarities across all living things.
 
Stratnerd

Stratnerd

New member
Some are sort-kinda testable as pseudohypotheses if we leave out who did it.

I mean we could make predictions about the earth and it's inhabitants if they were only 6000 years old.

I wouldn't call them hypotheses though... seems a silly attempt to make it sound serious.
 
Lithopaedion

Lithopaedion

New member
It is apparently easier to start a new thread than to address a very imporant issue from the last thread:

* What exactly is macroevolution?

* What would a confirmation of it look like, if it had really happened in the past or were happening now?

I agree witht Johnny. YEC would appear to be untestable and hence unscientific as stated. Only the flood is testable. The rest is not. I am aware than many YECers acknowledge this and stress that evolutionary theory is also unscientific. They want both models to be considered matters of faith. You appear to want to make a scientific case for YEC - at least that is what your talk about these new discoveries here and in your cell thread implies.
 
Lithopaedion

Lithopaedion

New member
Testing the ark hypothesis

Testing the ark hypothesis

mojill said:
Actually even #5 is untestable as "stated" because of the premise of the existence of Noah and his ark.
Click to expand...

Well, Noah's ark is testable, isn't it, at least as testable as, say, the story of the Trojan horse? While one could never prove that there had never been a big boat at that time, one could find evidence that there was such a thing.

I can imagine what such a find might look like. Remember those silly documentaries from the 1970s showing fuzzy photographs of the ruins of the "ark" amongst the rocks of Mt. Ararat? Not exposed to the wind and weather like that, but perhaps one could find buried remains of a huge boat. With dendrochronology we would have a shot of dating the find down to the exact year. If it were accompanied by written records mentioning Noah and lists of "kinds", remains of foodstuffs, etc., it might be a slam dunk - at least for some elements of the ark story.
 
DoogieTalons

DoogieTalons

BANNED
Banned
Hmm there isn't really anything on this planet that supports Young Earth... except the testimony in Genesis. Which is nonsense when you really read it.

There is no evidence on the planet that supports a worldwide flood... except the accounts in genesis. Which is again nonsense when you really read it.

It's hard to defend a position based on a belief based on a book that is basically a story book for an ancient race of Jews. No wonder Bob and Co have to tie them selves in knots to support it. Cognative Dissonance anyone ?
 
C

Carico

BANNED
Banned
bob b said:
The YEC hypothesis can be briefly stated as being based on the creation account in Genesis:

1) God creates the Universe, probably 6-7000 years ago, depending on which source scripture is used,

2) God causes life to arise on Earth in multiple "kinds" during the six days of creation,

3) Mankind rejects God's authority, causing what is popularly known as "the Fall".

4) After a few thousand years Mankind grows in sinfullness,

5) A global flood destroys all airbreathing animal life not preserved on Noah's Ark.

These are the major elements in Genesis which most YECs subscribe to.

--------------------

Fairly recently I discovered a possible way to resolve the apparent dilemma of how we can see stars billions of light years away in a universe that is only 6-7000 years old. This idea is generally based on the Big Bang idea that the coordinates of the universe expanded exponentially in the past, but this idea has a slight difference: it assumes that the expansion rate was slighter greater than that assumed by the Big Bang.

Scientists have been discovering much about the so-called "simple cell" in the past decade. One can get a feel for this by going through the "sticky" thread "Cell Trends Too" which talks about the discoveries since the year 2000.

It now appears that the three unsolved problems of evolutionary theory have been pushed back in time back beyond the Cambrian, which means before 99.99% of the fossils were laid down.

The three problems are of course: 1) the DNA/RNA/protein interrelated system, 2)
the sexual reproduction mechanism, and 3) the HOX gene switching mechanism which affects development of an embryo.

YECs believe that these are no "problem" at all if one assumes that Genesis was correct that God created multiple "kinds" of creatures that had the three "advanced capabilities" aready in place.
Click to expand...

Actually, God said that the stars would be as numerous as the sand on the seashore. So again, everything we need to know is in the bible. Only arrogant people like scientists think they know better than God does. But we know they don't. So they're only fooling themselves and others who think that letters after a person's name makes him omniscient. :chuckle:
 
Stratnerd

Stratnerd

New member
Only arrogant people like scientists think they know better than God does.
Click to expand...
That is a ridiculous thing to say. Creationists presume that literal Genesis = God's word like some ancient secretary was there taking dictation.
 
C

Carico

BANNED
Banned
Stratnerd said:
That is a ridiculous thing to say. Creationists presume that literal Genesis = God's word like some ancient secretary was there taking dictation.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but reality backs up creation. The 7 day creation formed the foundation for the 7 day week. The sun gives light by day, the moon and stars give light by night and are used to mark the months, seasons and years. Each species breeds its own kind and man rules over the animals. Man also turns to dust when his body decays. So reality agrees with creationism on every point.

Science, on the other hand, does not agree with reality. Apes do not produce human descendants in reality nor does any wild beast. As for the age of the earth, it's no coincidence that the dating instruments that date anything before the flood go haywire. That's because since scientists dismiss the flood about which over 200 ancient cultures have written, it's impossible to date any object that's been affected by millions of gallons of water without understanding the affects that that much water has on any object. So their claims about an old earth are bogus because they can't be proven nor verified by any ancient peoples. :)
 
Stratnerd

Stratnerd

New member
Sorry, but reality backs up creation.
Click to expand...
don't be sorry, it's not true.

man rules over the animals.
Click to expand...
not really. as far as I know, with the exception of domestic animals, most organisms do their thing without man being involved. and men still succumb to bacteria and viruses and parasites and we do their bidding like puppets.
Man also turns to dust when his body decays.
Click to expand...
gee, that's kinda obvious, eh.

Science, on the other hand, does not agree with reality.
Click to expand...
science describes reality!

Apes do not produce human descendants in reality
Click to expand...
they do because we are!

it's no coincidence that the dating instruments that date anything before the flood go haywire.
Click to expand...
where did you hear this nonsense?
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
DoogieTalons said:
There is no evidence on the planet that supports a worldwide flood... except the accounts in genesis. Which is again nonsense when you really read it.
Click to expand...
Yeah there is. Every sedimentary rock worth its salt was deposited in water. That is evidence for a worldwide flood.

Doogie, you are going to have to dig a little deeper than your own statements of faith to convince anyone one way or the other on matters science...
 
DoogieTalons

DoogieTalons

BANNED
Banned
Carico said:
Sorry, but reality backs up creation.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't, and I'm not sorry.
Carico said:
The 7 day creation formed the foundation for the 7 day week.
Click to expand...
Not really, we've been able to measure the movements of the stars for a lot longer than 6000 years it's not unreasonable to see that our existing seven day week was translated into the allegory that is Genesis. Genesis is simply a written account or explanation of what ancient saw and couldn't answer as they were not advanced enough.
Carico said:
The sun gives light by day, the moon and stars give light by night and are used to mark the months, seasons and years.
Click to expand...
Not really, the SUN gives light by night you moron, the moon is not a light source.

Carico said:
man rules over the animals.
Click to expand...
Go tell that a bear or lion in the state of a newly created man... go on strip down to a fig leaf and make bear sit.
Carico said:
So reality agrees with creationism on every point.
Click to expand...
Other than every point in which it don't.... all of em.
 
Mr Jack

Mr Jack

New member
stipe said:
Yeah there is. Every sedimentary rock worth its salt was deposited in water. That is evidence for a worldwide flood.
Click to expand...
Apart from Desert Sandstone, for example. But, yes, most sedimentary rock was deposited in water, and it's nature, structure, fossils, extent and location all demonstrate that it wasn't laid down in a flood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top