Young Earth Creationism Is Improbable

Many thanks to tejretics for opening up this debate topic for consideration and for accepting me as an opponent. This is a topic worth exploring, even though the material is often difficult to get a handle on. I will address the observations and objections of my opponent. Subsequently, I will tackle some new evidence which tejretics tries to introduce in this final round to salvage old-age evolution, such as the Galapagos finches, which are one of the strongest evidences for young-earth creationism available. Tejretics begins with four observations, one of which is patently absurd. He maintains that I cannot present 12 arguments for young earth creationism. Would he hold himself to that standard and argue that he cannot present 12 arguments for old age evolutionism? I don't need to belabor the absurdity here. Obs.#4 is mathematically flawed. He alleges that if he upholds just one assertion, then he will have succeeded in the debate. That is just rhetorical flair. Readers can judge a debate based on a preponderance of evidence and efficacy of arguments. Regarding his rebuttals, tejretics thinks that he can be dismissive toward ancient creation stories. But not so fast! Reporting of a recent creation by multiple cultures should not be dismissed easily for the reasons I gave. Ancient civilizations are often very advanced in their thinking and history-recording. Regarding being a "kritik," the source I cited is seriously interacting with the various "old-earth" histories proposed by evolutionists to account for the phenomenon of "Neanderthal" man. That is not the fanciful thinking of a "kritik" but a scientific probing into the inconsistencies of the dates proposed by paleo-anthropologists (Cuozzo, 104). Evolutionary scientists actually had to exaggerate how many tools had been discovered during the "Paleolithic Era" at the St. Germain-en-laye museum to accommodate what they believed to represent "10,000 generations" of ancient humans (Ibid.). My opponent seems to be forgetting that Haldane's dilemma regarding the number of favorable mutations which must occur for one animal to turn into a different type of animal was calculated with the odds heavily stacked in favor of evolution and yet Haldane doubted that evolutionary genetics could account for it. As to the criticism that he assumed a constant population size, this is readily addressed as irrelevant to "cost" calculated by Haldane. [1]The "cost" occurs, regardless of what the population size of the species is and regardless of how variable the environment is. As Haldane writes, "Do they [variations or mutations] show any sign of being mainly in any one direction, or of advantage to their possessor?....Out of over 400 mutations observed in one fly, all but two seemed to be disadvantageous; and they showed no definite tendency in any one direction." [2] It isn't a "straw man" argument that evolution would predict that ancient civilizations would be primitive. It follows logically and many evolutionists have maintained this in their writings, particularly in regard to the former belief that Neanderthal man was not speech-capable (an evolutionary idea) which was overturned by evidence (Morris & Morris, 90-91). The Bible predates modern attempts at trying to explain death through blind, evolutionary forces. It is hardly irrelevant to raise a point of empirical verifiability about the Bible in regards to the age of the earth. If the Bible presents more concrete scenarios by which we can develop interesting and testable hypotheses of the paleo-diet, then we ought to take seriously its timeline regarding the age of the earth. Apparently, tejretics didn't read the information about the soft-tissue dinosaur discovery that I presented or read any of the literature. First, it is entirely relevant to the case for young earth creationism. If the evolutionary stories of "millions of years" is dismantled and discredited, then the alternative becomes much more plausible! It is, indeed, very relevant. Had tejretics delved a bit more into the literature, he would have seen that the soft-tissue collagen completely refutes any supposed rock-dating method. Soft-tissue simply does not survive that long. [3] "Millions of years" becomes a nice fairy-tale, at best, and a deception, at worst, given this historic discovery. Bear in mind that so many tests were performed because evolutions were extremely reluctant to contend with the force of the discovery. On baraminology, a biosystematic model is proposed which better accounts for the data than making an evolutionary assumption that all species may merge into one another. Baraminology doesn't assume "creationism is true." It takes the notion of "kind" (probably broader than recent formulations of "species") and teases out the implications in natural and experimental study. It predicts fixity of "kinds" and that is exactly what we find in nature, even after utilizing attempts at artificial selection intended to show creative power of natural selection. I am pleased to see that tejretics cites the finches which were studied so thoroughly, not only by Darwin, but by other Galapagos explorers and scientists. The follow-up investigation by the Princeton duo, Peter and Rosemary Grant, which attempted to replicate Darwin's speculations where he thought that micro-variations of internal biology which expressed itself in morphology could eventually lead to huge, meta-species modifications turned out to be anything but helpful toward Darwin's leap of logic. [4] In fact, the more systematic study uncovered a fixity of bird kind which was originally predicted by the young-earth creation model. This model proposes a "creation orchard" which better fits the empirical data that was compiled at the Galapagos Islands. In a trick of irony, Darwin's work helps to bolster young earth creationism since the beak length and structure which had seemed to vary, promising results in the direction of "macro-evolution," turned out to be nothing but a dud. It was a famine that temporarily altered beak structure and not some sort of Darwinian tendency to develop a new species. [4] Nothing new genetically had been added to the finches to morph them into a different type or "kind" of animal....exactly as young earth creationism had predicted for thousands of years in this ancient text called the "Bible"! Again, I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss this topic with tejretics. I'm fairly sure that we both grew in our appreciation of one another's position throughout the course of this debate. [1] http://creationwiki.org... [2] http://www.arvindguptatoys.com... " under sub-heading "The Future of Biology" [3] https://answersingenesis.org... [4] http://crev.info... References: Clark, Gordon H. The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God. Jefferson, MD.: The Trinity Foundation, 1987. 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. Wise, Kurt P. "Baraminology: A Young-Earth Creation Biosystematic Method," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism: Vol. II Technical Symposium Sessions and Additional Topics, Pittsburgh, PA.: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1990.