Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

What a YEC world should look like.

Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 12:06:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
One particular issue it seems Creationists in general, and specifically YEC have, is a lack of critical thinking with regards to the consequences of their claims. In many examples, ad-hoc exceptions are cited, without a general framework of evidence that ties their beliefs together.

In an attempt to actually demonstrate this, I wanted to outline some of the things that we should see in the world if the world was specially created 10,000 years ago. These are using some examples where evidence should be demonstrable given what we know of life, and examples of specific Creationists claims used to "counter" evolution.

Obviously, many, many things demonstrate Creationism is false, and that the earth is old; I am focusing on the ones that either have never been explained, or waved off; or are direct consequences of claims by Creationists to wave away something else.

1.) Diamond and coal should have significant amounts of C14 in them, over and above the minute traces (normally attributable to contamination, measurement error or in-situ generation).

2.a) Radiometric dates should give wildly inaccurate dates, across the board; if dating is inaccurate one would expect there to be significant examples of dating errors everywhere, with only marginal concordances due to statistical chance.

2.b) In case of "sped up radiation" explanations, Measurements of the Fine Structure constant as made by astronomical observations, and by analysing fission records of natural nuclear reactors; should show deviations (any changes in radiation would cause the FSC to change).

3.) We should find mummified ANYTHING occasionally; not just species that we know lived recently. We should find significant quantities of DNA in many samples as we do for species we know are recently extant, and we should find significant non-fossilised examples across the entire fossile record, rather than just recent species.

4.) When comparing the genes for conserved proteins (genes shared by all species, or at least several species), the number of residue differences between ANY two species should be the same depending on length of reproduction cycles (barring statistical sampling error due to random chance). If they were all created at the same time residue changes can occur, and fixate at the same rate per generation (nominally) across all species.

5.) There should be no shared genetic markers, such as ERV's spread across multiple disparate species genomes, except those that are related via the primarily created common "kind" ancestor. There should be no copy-paste relationships, but more a patterened assembly of the genome that could be completely different.

6.) Creation is not limited to minor modifications over existing forms. (IE: The new VW beetle and the old VW beetle share similar body shapes, but are completely redesigned, not just a minor tweak). Therefore while many species could be tweaks of each other, many significant chimera's, or violations of a nested heirarchy should occur.

7.) Comparative taxonomy and phylogeny should break down when going far enough down the nested heirarchy when the point of "discretely created kind" is reached. It is inferred that live can evolve within kinds, so it is highly unlikely to expect God to create a kind (A) that is more similar to another kind (B), than that Kind B is to it's descendants. In fact, kinds should be determinable in some fashion by looking at characteristics or genetics; as one would expect the difference between two specially created kinds to be of a different from than the differences between a kind and it's descendants.

8.) While geological sorting could occur during a flood, to a degree, it cannot be 100% effective at sorting different species; moreover, such sorting should be limited to physical properties, rather than inferred evolutionary relationship. Therefore, one would expect a general pattern of types of fossiles within layers, violated by several or occasional exceptions where species weren't specifically sorted. Moreover, there is no reason to expect the sorting order to be roughly "evolutionarily implied relative age"

9.) There should be no geographical seperation of species based on inferred evolutionary history. Marsupials should be in all environments it's possible for them to be in, for example. Phylogenically related species have no reason to be in one general location, especially if they fall outside the definition of "kind".

10.) There should be significant evidence of a complete genetic bottleneck in a great many species. Global flooding wiping out all but a handful of creatures, should be evident in the genomic evidence for those creatures.

11.) Attavisms should either not exist; or be unrelated to phylogeny; IE: Humans can have attavistic tails where a tail should be; if these are not really tails, then they should be able to grow anywhere on the body. Moreover, attavisms are generally related to pre-existing structures implied by evolution; if such throwbacks can occur, one would expect them to be related to things other than implied by evolution; such as attavistic wings, organs, etc on species that shouldn't have them.

12.) One would not expect vestigiality (truely useless organs) to exist; and in cases where an organ very similar to that implied by phylogeny has a new use, one would expect to find many examples where the un-needed organ or appendange is not there, and a new phylogenically unrelated organ replaces it. For example, one would expect the human tail bone to disappear and be replaced with another, phylogenically unrelated bone for performing the same job better.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 8:19:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 12:06:21 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
One particular issue it seems Creationists in general, and specifically YEC have, is a lack of critical thinking with regards to the consequences of their claims. In many examples, ad-hoc exceptions are cited, without a general framework of evidence that ties their beliefs together.

In an attempt to actually demonstrate this, I wanted to outline some of the things that we should see in the world if the world was specially created 10,000 years ago. These are using some examples where evidence should be demonstrable given what we know of life, and examples of specific Creationists claims used to "counter" evolution.

Obviously, many, many things demonstrate Creationism is false, and that the earth is old; I am focusing on the ones that either have never been explained, or waved off; or are direct consequences of claims by Creationists to wave away something else.


1.) Diamond and coal should have significant amounts of C14 in them, over and above the minute traces (normally attributable to contamination, measurement error or in-situ generation).

2.a) Radiometric dates should give wildly inaccurate dates, across the board; if dating is inaccurate one would expect there to be significant examples of dating errors everywhere, with only marginal concordances due to statistical chance.

2.b) In case of "sped up radiation" explanations, Measurements of the Fine Structure constant as made by astronomical observations, and by analysing fission records of natural nuclear reactors; should show deviations (any changes in radiation would cause the FSC to change).

3.) We should find mummified ANYTHING occasionally; not just species that we know lived recently. We should find significant quantities of DNA in many samples as we do for species we know are recently extant, and we should find significant non-fossilised examples across the entire fossile record, rather than just recent species.

4.) When comparing the genes for conserved proteins (genes shared by all species, or at least several species), the number of residue differences between ANY two species should be the same depending on length of reproduction cycles (barring statistical sampling error due to random chance). If they were all created at the same time residue changes can occur, and fixate at the same rate per generation (nominally) across all species.

5.) There should be no shared genetic markers, such as ERV's spread across multiple disparate species genomes, except those that are related via the primarily created common "kind" ancestor. There should be no copy-paste relationships, but more a patterened assembly of the genome that could be completely different.

6.) Creation is not limited to minor modifications over existing forms. (IE: The new VW beetle and the old VW beetle share similar body shapes, but are completely redesigned, not just a minor tweak). Therefore while many species could be tweaks of each other, many significant chimera's, or violations of a nested heirarchy should occur.

7.) Comparative taxonomy and phylogeny should break down when going far enough down the nested heirarchy when the point of "discretely created kind" is reached. It is inferred that live can evolve within kinds, so it is highly unlikely to expect God to create a kind (A) that is more similar to another kind (B), than that Kind B is to it's descendants. In fact, kinds should be determinable in some fashion by looking at characteristics or genetics; as one would expect the difference between two specially created kinds to be of a different from than the differences between a kind and it's descendants.

8.) While geological sorting could occur during a flood, to a degree, it cannot be 100% effective at sorting different species; moreover, such sorting should be limited to physical properties, rather than inferred evolutionary relationship. Therefore, one would expect a general pattern of types of fossiles within layers, violated by several or occasional exceptions where species weren't specifically sorted. Moreover, there is no reason to expect the sorting order to be roughly "evolutionarily implied relative age"

9.) There should be no geographical seperation of species based on inferred evolutionary history. Marsupials should be in all environments it's possible for them to be in, for example. Phylogenically related species have no reason to be in one general location, especially if they fall outside the definition of "kind".

10.) There should be significant evidence of a complete genetic bottleneck in a great many species. Global flooding wiping out all but a handful of creatures, should be evident in the genomic evidence for those creatures.

11.) Attavisms should either not exist; or be unrelated to phylogeny; IE: Humans can have attavistic tails where a tail should be; if these are not really tails, then they should be able to grow anywhere on the body. Moreover, attavisms are generally related to pre-existing structures implied by evolution; if such throwbacks can occur, one would expect them to be related to things other than implied by evolution; such as attavistic wings, organs, etc on species that shouldn't have them.

12.) One would not expect vestigiality (truely useless organs) to exist; and in cases where an organ very similar to that implied by phylogeny has a new use, one would expect to find many examples where the un-needed organ or appendange is not there, and a new phylogenically unrelated organ replaces it. For example, one would expect the human tail bone to disappear and be replaced with another, phylogenically unrelated bone for performing the same job better.

see, what you dont understand is that the devil is trying to trick you. For example, he went in to those rocks and removed the C14. His hate for God is so powerful, that it actually changed the physical constraints of the universe.

and as long as you worship "Science" as your God, you will not be able to see this. Only after you accept Jesus Christ and accept that the bible is true and accurate, will you suddenly see that all of this is a lie, perpetrated by Satan and his hatred for you.

True story.