Young Earth Creationism Is Improbable

Young Earth Creationism is highly probable. Argument #1: Humans who have recorded history have only been around so long. They who were the most ancient do not recognize "millions and billions" of years but a relatively recent Creation event. It is one event in the minds of those peoples who are closer experientially to the beginning of time. If we ignore their testimony, we might as well ignore scientists who are speculating about events even farther back from their immediate horizon. The Biblical account of creation and its various versions in other cultures across the world support the notion of a recent Creation event. [4] As the early 20th century author, Dr. Hugo Radau, points out, there are similarities between the Genesis account and the Babylonian/Sumerian creation account involving the god, Marduk (Radau, pp. 1-6). Argument #2: It is supposed to be a strength of evolutionism that, like scientific induction, it is subject to experimental verification. But in the case of determining absolutely the age of the earth, that is not a strength! It is very much a weakness. If the age of the earth can continue to become "older" based on newer scientific calculations, then we might as well not give *any* date to the earth or universe since it might change tomorrow. As Jack Cuozzo writes regarding timeline theories of Neanderthal man and other presumed hominid ancestors, paleoanthropologists can merely exaggerate their numbers to make their theories appear to work. "It concerns numbers of stone, flint-like tools which had to be inflated to justify the total number of years that supposedly existed during the three Paleolithic Ages displayed at St. Germain-en-laye museum..." (Cuozzo, p. 104). Argument #3: Haldane's dilemma: Given the long evolutionary history projected between hominid ancestors, such as Lucy (australopithecus afarensis), and our current human population, there would not be enough time to evolve our human species. Major biological changes would be necessary but slow, evolutionary changes through natural selection would not provide enough changes to perform species-differentiation. As CreationWiki summarizes: "All the necessary data, theory, and claims, come from evolutionists. The calculation is: Allow 10 million years for an ape-man lineage. (This figure favors evolution by allowing far more time than is available.) Divided by 20 years effective generation time. (This figure is from evolutionary geneticists, for this lineage, over this period of time.) Divided by 300 generations per beneficial substitution. (This figure is from Haldane"s calculations.) Equals a maximum of 1667 beneficial mutations substituted into that ape-man lineage. (Plus some limited number of neutral mutations, which do nothing to improve adaptation.) The problem is: Can all the uniquely human adaptations be explained within that limit? Such adaptations would include: the tripling of brain size, upright posture, hand dexterity, vocal speech organs, language, distribution of hair, and appreciation of music, to name a few. That can be compared with the power of beneficial mutations observed today, such as the alleged examples in the beaks of"Galapagos finches."Is a limit of 1,667 beneficial mutations sufficient to create all the uniquely human adaptations?"This is Haldane"s Dilemma. The problem is deepened by the fact that"Haldane"s assumptions are wildly unrealistic"in favor"of evolution." [3] Argument #4: Ancient civilizations are more intelligent than our own modern civilizations. If old-earth creationism or evolutionism were true, we would expect to see certain things in ancient civilizations. We would expect them to be less advanced and less "evolved" or intelligent. But that is not the case. Argument #5: Young Earth Creationism predicts death and decay whereas evolutionism does not. For evolutionism, death and decay are a big question mark. How did they come about? No one can give a naturalistic answer to that question. Argument #6: A linchpin story of evolution has been thoroughly dismantled. Dinosaurs did not live 65 million years ago and become extinct. Once a fairy tale, now disconfirmed and disabusing overeager evolutionists. Soft dinosaur tissue has been a stupefying blow to "millions of year" evolutionary tales. Evolutionary scientists were so skeptical of the research conducted by Mary Schweitzer and her colleagues that they demanded test after test to try to find contaminants which had entered the archeological dig. [1] At first, evolutionists had hoped that paleontologists would not uncover any more tissue which should have already fossilized or decayed from C14 analysis. [1] http://www.debate.org... Argument #7: If a universal flood occurred, as purports much of geologic evidence, then it bolsters the claims of the Biblical account of Creation since that account is followed by what many believe to be an incredible account of a world-wide or universal flood and only a handful of survivors. Argument #8: "Natural selection" was a pardigmatic discovery made by Creationist, Edward Blyth, even though Charles Darwin was credited with its discovery (Morris & Morris, p. 34). Blyth correctly applied the theory of natural selection whereas Darwin misapplied it and tried to construe it as a creative and productive force in nature that evolved new species. In fact, Natural Selection is not generative; it is eliminative. Natural selection is a logical tautology and not synthetic in a Kantian sense - "Those that fit the environment survive. Why do they survive? Because they fit the environment" (Ibid; Chui, p. 85). It demonstrates what what is fit, survives and therefore what biologists observe to have survived will have been those which are fittest. That information does not tell us anything about what natural selection "produced" however. Limited genetic variability allowing some essential survivability supports the Young Earth Creationist model of a Creation orchard rather than an evolutionary tree (Sarfati, pp. 38-39; Wise, p. 358). Argument #9: Paralleling the multiplying dinosaur tissue discoveries is the underwater discovery of seabed worms which are supposedly pre-Cambrian and over 500 million years old. If they are truly this old, then why is soft tissue still present on the fossilized specimen? [2] Researchers were even able to determine that nanobacteria, dated accordinly, were abundantly available. http://www.debate.org... Argument #10: It may be the case that YEC is not only highly probably but inescapable. Human consciousness and language is a tremendous mystery given evolution. None has observed consciousness evolving from creatures incapable of consciousness to creatures who have consciousness. Likewise, linguistic capacity has never been seen evolving. Thus, the mere fact that one human being attempt to communicate, as in this debate, presupposes that consciousness and linguistic ability are non-evolved and stable. If languages appear, fully formed, then it confirms the Creation models where these sorts of faculties are not slowly developed over eons but are co-eval with humans. If languages did not appear intact, then my opponent and I could not communicate. We would both lie at different levels of consciousness and linguistic levels. Yet we can communicate. Therefore, the YEC model is confirmed. Argument #11: Baraminology supports YEC (Wise, pp. 345-358). Using discontinuity bio-systematics exploring and classifying specimens based on empirically governed criteria, not imaginary examples, baraminology has been able to demonstrate more precisely the nature of a biblical "kind" versus the ever-changing efforts at defining species by modern evolutionists (Ibid; ReMine, pp. 207-209). Argument #12: The implosion of bad evolutionary arguments has led many to recognize that importing "millions and billions" of years is not enough to support the metaphysical weight of the evolution. Crumbling evidences for the evolutionary tree include "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" or what Dr. Haeckel, devout Darwinian follower, called "the fundamental biogenetic law" (Davidheiser, p. 241). But propping up the presumably long ages of biological evolution in this deceptive manner, with scientists increasingly discrediting it, was not enough to dislodge the faith of textbook writers refusing to remove it as evidence for evolution's time-line (Ibid). References: Chui, Christopher K. Did God Use Evolution to "Create"?: A Critique of Biological Evolution, Geological Evolution, and Astronomical Evolution. Canoga Park, CA.: Logos Publishers, 1993. Davidheiser, Bolton. Evolution and Christian Faith. Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, 1969. Cuozzo, Jack. Buried Alive: The Startling, Untold Story about Neanderthal Man. Green Forest, AR.: Master Books, 1998. Morris, Henry M. and John D. Morris. The Modern Creation Trilogy: Science and Creation. Vol. II. Green Forest, AR.: Master Books, 1996. Radau, Hugo. The Creation Story of Genesis I: A Sumerian Theogony and Cosmogony. Chicago, IL.: Open Court Publishing, 1902. ReMine, Walter J. "Discontinuity Systematics: A New Methodology of Biosystematics Relevant to the Creation Model," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism: Vol. II Technical Symposium Sessions and Additional Topics, Pittsburgh, PA.: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1990. Sarfati, Jonathan. Refuting Evolution. Green Forest, AR.: Master Books, 2001. Wise, Kurt P. "Baraminology: A Young-Earth Creation Biosystematic Method," Proceedings...., Pittsburgh, PA.: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1990. [1] http://creation.com... [2] http://creation.com... [3] http://creationwiki.org... [4] https://answersingenesis.org...