stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote | 14
Drc466August 19, 2019 at 7:36 am
So, allow me to provide an opinion from the YEC perspective.
To expand on the Update to the OP, YEC not only acknowledges that our beliefs are based on a fundamentalist reading of a religious document, we also readily acknowledge that the most straight-forward examination of all available empirical evidence exposes two basic contradictions to a YEC interpretation: distant starlight and radioactive decay. As fundamentalists, like fundamentalist Darwinians, we seek to provide theoretical explanations for the discordant data (e.g. “white-hole cosmogeny”). Unlike fundamentalist Darwinians, we do not try to pretend such discordancies don’t even exist, or that YEC is “as much a law as the law of gravity”.
Somewhat OT: And, yes, our belief system isn’t particularly bothered by these two discrepancies, for the simple reason that all available empirical evidence does not lead to a single consistent conclusion from the data. Quick: on a piece of paper, list all of the empirical evidence that gives you a result of 4.5by for earth (and the solar system)’s age, and all of the empirical evidence that gives you a result of approx 14by for the universe. Now list all the other measures of age that don’t match. If you’re being honest: which list is longer?
The good part about being YEC is that, unlike materialist evolutionists, as new discoveries are made, from biology to cosmology, we see more evidence for our position, rather than having to add epicycles like dark matter, punc eq, neutral theory, iron-bonding, oort clouds, etc., etc. Junk DNA? nope. Vestigial Organs? nope. Young active planets? yup. Living fossils? yup. Original biomatter in “ancient” life? yup. Massively complex genetics? yup. Genetic burden? yup. And so on. Contrary to popular misconception and Evolutionist propaganda, we don’t have to “bastardize” evidence, nor do we object to any type of scientific exploration and experimentation, as they solidify our position, not falsify it. Think about it – what was the last time you actually heard about a discovery that evolutionists trumpeted as “falsifying creationism!”? Getting fewer and farther between, aren’t they? When was the last time you read a book against creationism that didn’t come down to, “well, God wouldn’t have done it that way!”. Now you just get to hear about “third ways”, and “biofilms”, and “expanded Cambrian age”, and other attempts to explain why empirical evidence doesn’t somehow contradict Evolution.
Personal anecdote: I’m old enough to remember debating evolutionists on a Compuserve topic board back in the late ’80s. 30 years later, the objections to YEC are still the same (distant starlight/radioactive decay), while our increase in knowledge and experimentation has only strengthened the YEC position. Can’t wait to see what the next 30 years brings!
P.S. Just out of curiosity – if anyone has empirical evidence that inherently disputes the YEC view beyond the two listed above, I’d be interested to hear it. I might be forgetting something. |
linky
|
