A challenge to creationists

[rikuoamero]

Here is a challenge to creationists, particularly of the young earth variety.

Provide scientific evidence that the earth is actually young, and was created by a creator.
However, here is where it gets interesting.
From what I've seen over the years, creationists start their quote unquote investigations already believing creationism to be true and interpret any data gathered In that light.
This time around, pretend that you live in a world where the idea or concept of YEC is unknown. No-one to date has thought up the idea.
Now pretend you're going out to look at the world. What data do you or can you gather that would indicate YEC, that would strongly indicate in that direction, that do not require an acceptance of the bible and YEC beforehand?

[1213]

…I don't doubt that you can find a scripture that backs up your claim, but that is just part of the nature of this book, picking and choosing verses to make the religion conform to your desires. As I have shown, righteousness does not need to be a requirement for eternal life. …

Actually, salvation by belief means, sins are forgiven, if you believe it. But that is just new beginning for person who has been unrighteous. If after salvation, forgiveness of sins, person continues in sin, the forgiveness was not useful.

And anyway, I understand that person can pick and choose form the Bible. I think it is not good and disciples of Jesus (“Christian�) should receive all of it, only then they can fully understand it. And there is no reason to reject this:

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

It is odd that people seem to want to ignore that.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 59 by 1213]

I am not sure what you are trying to suggest.
Why does a volcano decide to erupt in 1883?
When does a solar flare erupt?
Why was the printing press invented in 1440?

And what does radiometric dating have to with anything? There are lots of ways to date things, and they all agree on one thing:

The New Testament dating isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
And the OTs verbal tradition dates isn't worth the vellum it is printed on.

[Kenisaw]

If people were living like animals just to be able to survive, they didn't have the will, food or materials to write it down and progress. In addition to other factors.

But why did the “living like animals� end about 6000 years ago, but not 200 000 years ago, or 100 000 years ago? I have understood that ice age didn’t last that long and even if there were massive sun flares, they don’t destroy all signs of intelligent people. I understand that catastrophes can destroy a lot, but even then, there should be signs of things that were.

When only “proof� for great age is the radiometric dating, the long age is quite difficult belief for me to believe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

6,000 years ago is not an accurate date.

[Danmark]

It would be interesting to see that ['that their preferred god concept is not needed to explain things.'] No atheist has ever shown that.

Really? You are not aware of understanding nature except by "God did it?"
Are thunder, lightning, rain, the seasons, night and day only understandable to you by the explanation 'God did it?'

[Cinderella Man]

The process that petrifies tree takes millions of years. This alone should dispel creationists. Of course I know they wrangle arguments that it can happen in much shorter spans, but this has not been demonstrated so the scientific explanation is still the best source.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 21 by rikuoamero]

Well i imagine that since evolution requires a billion years or so that would nudge them to interpret the age of the world and universe a certain way. Can anyone admit the possibility?

Just to correct you on this, wootah, this is NOT a parallel to what I see from you and your fellow creationists.
You and your fellow creationists start by reading the Bible, believing it when it says the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Your justification for this is what you said in Post 3
"Essentially as a Christian, I'm claiming there was a witness to the age of the Earth who testified to that creation in the Bible. "
The only reason you gave for YEC is circular. You read it in the Bible, treat the God character mentioned within as a valid witness (even though all we have is the text on a page)...and then interpret any data gathered from the real world in support of that idea.

You're not gathering data first/performing measurements. You're letting your ideology taint your so called scientific work.
"Dismissing the Bible as a starting basis means no Christianity. "
Do you even know how to perform scientific measurements? I've done scientific work in the past.
At no point, did I have a Bible lying open next to me when I was doing it.

Basically, the point of my challenge was to get you and people like you to realise that there is no scientific merit to YEC. Only a cheat, you START with the Bible and then interpret any data gathered in that light, instead of the other way around.
Physics does not jell with ancient mythology. You don't see scientists interpreting data in light of what ancient Greek myths teach, for example, you don't see them teaching that there ARE gods on Mt. Olympus.

[Cinderella Man]

[Replying to post 65 by rikuoamero]

Just to be clear, rikuoamero, there is no mention of the age of the earth in the Bible in terms that we can translate into years or even centuries. That "estimate" of 6,000 years came from counting the genealogies of people mentioned in the Bible. I have forgotten who first made this estimate but I'm pretty sure it was someone back in the Elizabethan age with no knowledge of geology. I'm sure you know this but I think it is important to make this distinction when Christians make a claim about the age of the earth. The Bible does not tell us that age; just like much of how Christians define themselves, they just make it up all on their own.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 66 by Cinderella Man]

Just to be clear, rikuoamero, there is no mention of the age of the earth in the Bible in terms that we can translate into years or even centuries. That "estimate" of 6,000 years came from counting the genealogies of people mentioned in the Bible.

Yes I am aware of that. A creationist in this thread made that exact point, about the genealogies, as if that somehow is a valid method of counting the age of the physical Earth.
So far, in this thread, we have not had ONE single creationist willing to outline a method by which they perform scientific based measurements and then come to the conclusion that the Earth is young, without having knowledge of the concept of YEC beforehand.