How wrong is YEC?

rossum

Active member
Young Earth creationism is wrong, but how wrong?

YEC says that the universe is 6,000 years old. Astronomy and cosmology say that the universe is 13.5 billion years old. That is a difference of a factor 13,500,000,000 / 6,000 = 2,250,000.

The distance from New York to San Francisco is 2,600 miles. In YEC-world that is 2,600 / 2,250,000 = 0.001155 miles, a distance of 6 feet.

The distance across the Atlantic Ocean, New York to Dublin is 3176 miles. In YEC-world that is 3,176 / 2,250,000 = 0.001411 miles, a distance of 7' 6".

That is how wrong YEC is.
 
Young Earth creationism is wrong, but how wrong?

YEC says that the universe is 6,000 years old. Astronomy and cosmology say that the universe is 13.5 billion years old. That is a difference of a factor 13,500,000,000 / 6,000 = 2,250,000.

The distance from New York to San Francisco is 2,600 miles. In YEC-world that is 2,600 / 2,250,000 = 0.001155 miles, a distance of 6 feet.

The distance across the Atlantic Ocean, New York to Dublin is 3176 miles. In YEC-world that is 3,176 / 2,250,000 = 0.001411 miles, a distance of 7' 6".

That is how wrong YEC is.

There's no way of changing their mind, just as you can't change the mind of flat-earthers. They are all in the same bunch.

This is the reason why education is important.
 

The Pixie

Active member
They know they're wrong, and they don't care.
I actually think most of them honestly believe it. Religion conditions them to believe anything without questioning it. If you are told that doubt will lead to you going to hell, you will do all you can to avoid anything that might give doubt. Just look at the nonsense Scientologists believe.

That said, I do not doubt that there are some who know it is wrong, but see an opportunity to make some big cash out of it. The big names in creationism make some serious money out of it, and have a vested interest in lying to the idiots who swallow their nonsense.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Old earthianity is hot stuff for people with a strong appetite for fake News and uses the exact same tactics as those clinging to flat earth.

Notice the strong desire by Buddhists for ignorance. Unquenched desire. They are not bright enough to ask The Creator who observed HIS creation in 6 days. The same Creator promised to give rebels and deniers over to a delusion.
 

The Pixie

Active member
I actually think most of them honestly believe it. Religion conditions them to believe anything without questioning it. If you are told that doubt will lead to you going to hell, you will do all you can to avoid anything that might give doubt. Just look at the nonsense Scientologists believe.

That said, I do not doubt that there are some who know it is wrong, but see an opportunity to make some big cash out of it. The big names in creationism make some serious money out of it, and have a vested interest in lying to the idiots who swallow their nonsense.
Just to add to this, when we see people on CARM who are unable to construct a coherent sentence promoting creationism, chances are they are just woefully ignorant.

On the other hand, when we see someone like Michael Behe, who is a university professor with Ph.D. in biochemistry choosing to attack Darwin rather than evolution (as evidenced by his most recent books Darwin devolves and A Mousetrap for Darwin), we know he is in it for the money.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
Young Earth creationism is wrong, but how wrong?

YEC says that the universe is 6,000 years old. Astronomy and cosmology say that the universe is 13.5 billion years old. That is a difference of a factor 13,500,000,000 / 6,000 = 2,250,000.

The distance from New York to San Francisco is 2,600 miles. In YEC-world that is 2,600 / 2,250,000 = 0.001155 miles, a distance of 6 feet.

The distance across the Atlantic Ocean, New York to Dublin is 3176 miles. In YEC-world that is 3,176 / 2,250,000 = 0.001411 miles, a distance of 7' 6".

That is how wrong YEC is.
Time does slow down in a gravity field.

If you could go into a blackhole time would slow down in reference to time on earth.
 

rossum

Active member
If you could go into a blackhole time would slow down in reference to time on earth.
And time on earth would speed up in reference to time in the black hole. But that does not matter, since light cannot escape from a black hole so we will never be able to detect the time-shifted light.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
And time on earth would speed up in reference to time in the black hole. But that does not matter, since light cannot escape from a black hole so we will never be able to detect the time-shifted light.
There's a theory that says the universe was in a gravity well. As the universe was spreading out the outer edges emerged from the gravity well and time was moving faster compared to what was in the gravity well. The gravity well grew smaller and smaller until only the area around the earth was left in it. A large amount of time passed which allowed the light from the stars to be here when the earth emerged.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
We can know the old earth dates are incorrect when we examine biomaterial found in dino-fossils. If the fossils truly are 65+ MY's old there would be no biomaterial left.

But you said...Young Earth creationism is wrong, but how wrong? Not very wrong.
 

Andy Sist

Active member
We can know the old earth dates are incorrect when we examine biomaterial found in dino-fossils. If the fossils truly are 65+ MY's old there would be no biomaterial left.
Why do you repeat this falsehood? Science now knows the mechanism whereby trace amount of original organics can be preserved for millions of years. You were shown this paper less than two weeks ago and you've already "forgotten" the science. Not very impressive.

Fossilization transforms vertebrate hard tissue proteins into N-heterocyclic polymers
Wienmann et all
Nature Communications, 9, No. 4741 (2018)

Fossilization transforms vertebrate hard tissue proteins into N-heterocyclic polymers

Abstract: Vertebrate hard tissues consist of mineral crystallites within a proteinaceous scaffold that normally degrades post-mortem. Here we show, however, that decalcification of Mesozoic hard tissues preserved in oxidative settings releases brownish stained extracellular matrix, cells, blood vessels, and nerve projections. Raman Microspectroscopy shows that these fossil soft tissues are a product of diagenetic transformation to Advanced Glycoxidation and Lipoxidation End Products, a class of N-heterocyclic polymers generated via oxidative crosslinking of proteinaceous scaffolds. Hard tissues in reducing environments, in contrast, lack soft tissue preservation. Comparison of fossil soft tissues with modern and experimentally matured samples reveals how proteinaceous tissues undergo diagenesis and explains biases in their preservation in the rock record. This provides a target, focused on oxidative depositional environments, for finding cellular-to-subcellular soft tissue morphology in fossils and validates its use in phylogenetic and other evolutionary studies.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
Why do you repeat this falsehood? Science now knows the mechanism whereby trace amount of original organics can be preserved for millions of years. You were shown this paper less than two weeks ago and you've already "forgotten" the science. Not very impressive.
I refuted your so-called paper. Have you forgotten that?

So, how did the biomaterial survive? Your paper addressed the fossilization of soft material. It didn't address why the soft tissue remained.
 

Andy Sist

Active member
I refuted your so-called paper.
It's not my paper. It's published by Nature, one of the top science journals in the world. If you want to refute the paper you need to write up your refutation and submit it to Nature for peer review and publication. Whining and stomping your feet does not constitute a refutation.

Your paper addressed the fossilization of soft material. It didn't address why the soft tissue remained.
I see you still didn't read the actual paper and are still just knee-jerk rejecting science you're too afraid to even look at. Sorry but the only person who can cure your willful ignorance is you.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
It's not my paper. It's published by Nature, one of the top science journals in the world. If you want to refute the paper you need to write up your refutation and submit it to Nature for peer review and publication. Whining and stomping your feet does not constitute a refutation.


I see you still didn't read the actual paper and are still just knee-jerk rejecting science you're too afraid to even look at. Sorry but the only person who can cure your willful ignorance is you.
You don't seem to understand soft tissue....A jelly fish is soft tissue and fossil jelly fish are rare. Your Nature article spoke about fossilizing soft tissue such as a jelly fish has.....It's not about preserving the soft tissue so it doesn't rot.
 

Andy Sist

Active member
You don't seem to understand soft tissue....A jelly fish is soft tissue and fossil jelly fish are rare. Your Nature article spoke about fossilizing soft tissue such as a jelly fish has.....It's not about preserving the soft tissue so it doesn't rot.
You'll never understand the paper when you refuse to even look at it. From the paper

Soft tissues preserve in oxidative settings​

Twenty-four specimens (Supplementary Tables 1–5, Supplementary Figs. 1–3) of biomineralized vertebrate tissues ranging in age from modern to Late Triassic (ca. 205 mya), and representing environments from oxidative to reducing, were decalcified to release any soft tissues present, and their mineralogy and organic content were analyzed.

Soft tissues were present in all modern samples, but only in those fossils from oxidative settings. The Jurassic (Oxfordian) paleonisciform scales preserve a fully articulated three-dimensional vascular system together with a dense meshwork of unbranched tubular nerve projections resembling the dental tubuli in modern vertebrate teeth (Fig. 1a, Supplementary Fig. 1), the first such features discovered in a fossil. The blood vessels are stained brown. The tubular nerve projections are hollow and appear translucent with walls that are beige in color. The soft tissues are brittle and cracked, and account for about 70% by volume of the ganoid scale prior to decalcification
What part of "soft tissues were present...in those fossils from oxidative settings" didn't you understand?

Here's more

The organic remains in the bone samples are also brittle. The Jurassic diplodocid bone yielded large (up to 1500 µm) extracellular matrix fragments which preserve anastomosing vascular canals and interconnected (max. 25 µm length) osteocytes with extensive filipodia in some areas, but only osteocyte lacunae elsewhere
What part of organic remains don't you understand?
 
Last edited:

CrowCross

Well-known member
You'll never understand the paper when you refuse to even look at it. From the paper


What part of "soft tissues were present...in those fossils from oxidative settings" didn't you understand?

Here's more


What part of organic remains don't you understand?
No, you still have it wrong...The soft tissues are brittle and cracked...that doesn't sound soft.

The article was about fossilizing soft material...not preserving it.
 

Andy Sist

Active member
The article was about fossilizing soft material...not preserving it.
LOL! The paper specifically says ORGANIC REMAINS from the original animals were recovered. Not just fossils of the original biomaterial. Original ORGANIC REMAINS. Maybe you just don't understand what organic means, is that it?

Maybe you can understand this from the Discussion Section:

Thermo-oxidatively induced, intensive crosslinking of proteins results in hydrophobic, reinforced AGE/ALE scaffolds resistant to microbial digestion. This explains the preservation of fragile soft tissues in certain chemical environments through deep time.

What does that last sentence in bold say?
 
Last edited:

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
I think the position of creationists and arguing with them is pretty well summed up by the quote (paraphrases of which have been ascribed to just about everybody) from Johnathan Swift: "Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired." Nowadays it's often paraphrased as "You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not acquire by use of reason" or similar.

If the quote did not actually originate with Swift, my apologies. That's the author my research led me to, but I'm by no means married to it.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
There's a theory that says the universe was in a gravity well. As the universe was spreading out the outer edges emerged from the gravity well and time was moving faster compared to what was in the gravity well. The gravity well grew smaller and smaller until only the area around the earth was left in it. A large amount of time passed which allowed the light from the stars to be here when the earth emerged.
Interesting. Do you have the slightest evidence it's true?
 
Top