Four questions for YECs - (and a little history of creationism vs evolution)

[Retrobyter]

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Meet Oklo, the Earth’s Two-billion-year-old only Known Natural Nuclear Reactor

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-two-billion-year-old-only-known-natural-nuclear-reactor

The reaction products show us the half-life of radioactive materials for that time.   And that shows us that the speed of light was the same then as it is now.   And by those two constants, we know that chemical reactions were the same as they are now.  Which means things like climate, weather, evaporation, etc. all worked as they did now.

One's EXPECTATIONS of what they would find under the CURRENT nuclear fission process has led them to conclusions about the "RESULTS" (the TRUE evidence) they find today! Because of their EXPECTATIONS on how long it would take for nuclear fission to occur under natural conditions gave one the IDEA of what to expect! Can't you see the circular reasoning in that?

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That was God's word.   If His word isn't good enough for you, science can't help you.    Just accept His word as it is, and this won't bother you any more.

Nonsense. I'm not going to accept "science" as God's Word, and THAT is what you are asking us to do! So, your conclusion that "this is what is bothering us" is simply FALSE!

[Retrobyter]

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

But as I showed Dad, that's not what God said.   I quoted Him saying that Adam had become like Him.    I believe Him.  You should, too.

Shalom, The Barbarian.

It IS what God said! I QUOTED HIM! "Like" or "as," the words mean the same thing: to borrow from math terms, the two are CONGRUENT but not EQUAL! And, YHWH God SPECIFIED what He meant by the comparison! Look at the text one more time:

Genesis 3:22-23 (KJV)

22 And the LORD God said,

"Behold, the man is become as one of us, TO KNOW GOOD AND EVIL: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever ....": 

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

That's as much as man "became LIKE one of Us." "To know good and evil." If it would help, I could show you the Hebrew of the sentence, which essentially says the SAME THING!

In fact, I think I will. Here's the Hebrew of these two verses:

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר ׀ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֗ים הֵ֤ן הָֽאָדָם֙ הָיָה֙ כְּאַחַ֣ד מִמֶּ֔נּוּ לָדַ֖עַת טֹ֣וב וָרָ֑ע וְעַתָּ֣ה ׀ פֶּן־יִשְׁלַ֣ח יָדֹ֗ו וְלָקַח֙ גַּ֚ם מֵעֵ֣ץ הַֽחַיִּ֔ים וְאָכַ֖ל וָחַ֥י לְעֹלָֽם׃
וַֽיְשַׁלְּחֵ֛הוּ יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים מִגַּן־עֵ֑דֶן לַֽעֲבֹד֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֻקַּ֖ח מִשָּֽׁם׃

(These verses are still read from right to left, even though the sentences are shown left-justified.)

Transliterated, these become:

22 Vayyo'mer | YHWH 'Elohiym heen haa'Aadaam haayaah k'achad mimmennuw laada`at TowV vaaraa` v`attaah | pen-yishlach yaadow vlaaqach gam mee`eets hachayyiym v'aakhal vaachay l`olaam:
23 Vayshallcheehuw YHWH 'Elohiym miggan-`Eeden la`aVod 'et-haa'adaamaah 'asher luqqach mishshaam: 

And, translated word-for-word, these words become:

22 And-said | YHWH God "Behold/Look! the-Red-[man] has-become like-one from-Us to-know good and-evil and-now | lest-he-put-out his-hand and-he-take also from-tree of-the-living-[ones] and-he-eat and-he-live into-[the]-vanishing-point":
23 And-He-sent-him YHWH God from-the-garden-of-Eeden to-till [d.o.->]-the-red-[ground] that he-had-been-taken from-there:

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That's what I told Dad, but he refused to believe it.   Satan is a specialist in deceiving us by telling part of the  truth.   As God confirms, Adam did become like Him.   But not being able to be truly good, it was a disaster for Adam and his descendants.   I am pleased to know you see this.

 I just showed Dad how satan lies.    Or did you mean to say that to Dad?

Actually, from the way you were talking, it sounded as though you were saying that Adam had become like God in more respects than God singled out. The ONLY WAY they (for "Adam" is the name of BOTH the man and the woman) had become "like God" was in "knowing good and evil."

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That's why scientists accept it.    Physics isn't a matter of chance.   It works by knowable laws.   But as you suggest, there are ways to mess up such testing.   There are entire books about things that need to be controlled to avoid errors.

And yet, even with these "entire books about things that need to be controlled to avoid errors," they will STILL start with the premise that these things take "millions of years" to accomplish! I agree, that "physics isn't a matter of chance"; however, as with the usage of ANY accepted truth, how one starts with the premises upon which to build will affect one's outcome! It's similar to how one builds a building: If one starts with a foundation that is well-sunk to the bedrock, one's building will remain vertical and solid. However, if the foundation is not as stable as it should be, then the building will end up like the leaning Tower of Piza!

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

One of the most important ways to know how accurate these tests are, is the concordance of different isotope dating results.   So is the isochron method that correlates ages with the remaining daughter isotopes.    It works and it works very well.

...ACCORDING to the initial premise that it took "millions of years to accomplish!" Besides, you're using radiometric dating methods to confirm radiometric dating methods! As the Scriptures say,

"Comparing themselves among themselves [they] are not wise!" (2 Cor. 10:12)

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

If you really think that, then you know almost nothing about physics and radioisotopes.

Actually, I know a good deal about radioisotopes, being first in my class for both physics and chemistry. However, I know a good deal more about PEOPLE! And, it's surprising "how much you have to know before you know how little you know!" And, "hindsight is twenty-twenty!" People are MYOPIC when it comes to the things they don't know. "You don't know that you don't know what you don't know!" These are truisms that one should NOT neglect if one is going to discover the truth!

Science is only as good as the premises upon which one starts. IF those premises - like "the earth is flat" or "the earth is the center of the universe" - are wrong, then the conclusions of science will likewise be wrong. They have been in the past, and we will discover as time goes on that what we believe today will be discovered to be wrong in the future, as well!

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Fortunately, we have evidence showing otherwise.  Would you like to learn about some of it?   And of course, scripture never says that God changed the laws of nature after a flood.

Again, no evidence or scriptural support for such a belief.

Eu contraire, mon frere! It DOES say that God changed the laws of nature! Look at what ALL the land animals were given to eat in the Creation:

Genesis 1:29-30 (KJV)

29 And God said (to the man),

"Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat":

and it was so.

That INCLUDES all the "beasts of the earth," all the animals who would later be carnivores, such as lions, and dinosaurs considered carnivores today! Then, AFTER THE FLOOD in Noach's 601st year,

Genesis 9:1-17 (KJV)

1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them,

"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3 EVERY MOVING THING THAT LIVETH SHALL BE MEAT FOR YOU; EVEN AS THE GREEN HERB HAVE I GIVEN YOU ALL THINGS. 4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. 

5 "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; AT THE HAND OF EVERY BEAST WILL I REQUIRE IT, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.

(There would now be beasts that would kill human beings!)

6 "Whoso (WHATEVER) sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

7 "And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein."

8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, 

9 "And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. 11 And I will establish my covenant with you; NEITHER SHALL ALL FLESH BE CUT OFF ANY MORE BY THE WATERS OF A FLOOD; NEITHER SHALL THERE ANY MORE BE A FLOOD TO DESTROY THE EARTH." 

(That's a lie, if this was just a LOCAL flood! Wouldn't you agree?)

12 And God said,

"This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. 14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: 15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and THE WATERS SHALL NO MORE BECOME A FLOOD TO DESTROY ALL FLESH. 16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I WILL LOOK UPON IT, THAT I MAY REMEMBER THE EVERLASTING COVENANT BETWEEN GOD AND EVERY LIVING CREATURE OF ALL FLESH THAT IS UPON THE EARTH."

(Then, God created the rainbow in the clouds, refracting the light into its constituent wavelengths, best seen from ABOVE the clouds. Remember: they had landed upon Mount Ararat in Turkey. And now, we use that SAME SPECTRUM to LIE about the age of the universe! Go figure!)

17 And God said unto Noah,

"This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth."

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Such a canopy would have blacked out the sun.   Even two hundred feet of water means no photosynthesis can take place at that level or deeper.   And at the altitudes necessary to keep water in orbit, the pressure is such that water can exist only as ice or vapor. 

Precisely! That is why I adhere mostly to the concept of a water vapor canopy. Water and ice (unless it is EXTREMELY pure) refracts light, and the thicker it is, the more opaque the water becomes. HOWEVER, TRUE water vapor is an invisible GAS! It is TRANSPARENT to the light and does NOT refract the light that passes through it.

That which exists in clouds are CONDENSED water droplets, which condense upon small particles, whether dust or ice, floating in the air. That is why clouds can become thick and dark when they are about to precipitate.

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Where does scripture say that Noah only ate plants before the flood?

(See above.)

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Scientists built a model of a pterosaur.  It flies well.   There are birds with higher wing loading today, and they fly just fine.   I'd be willing to look at your calculations, though.

Well, according to NBC News in an article by Larry O. Hanlon, dated Nov. 8, 2012,

"This pterodactyl was so big it couldn't fly, scientist claims

Bad news dragon riders: Your dragon can't take off. A new analysis of the largest of pterodactyls suggests they were too big and their muscles too weak to vault into the air and fly. Instead, they were right at the upper limit of animal flight and needed a hill or stiff breeze so they could soar like hang gliders."

For more, see NBC Science News, talking about the Quetzalcoatlus pterodactyl.

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

In fact, Dr. Wood is putting his interpretation (YE) of God's word above science.   He's just honest enough to admit that there is a great deal of evidence for evolution.  He just puts his religious ideas above the evidence.   He notes that evolutionary theory is not flawed.

Actually, the GTE (the general theory of evolution) IS flawed ... CONSIDERABLY, whether Dr. Wood recognizes it or not! The STE (the special theory of evolution), which I call "genetic variation," is part of God's creative genius. Within "kinds," God MEANT for variations to occur! It helps organisms to adapt to changes in their environments! It also helps to "weed out" all the flaws within the natural changes to a species.

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Dr. Wood actually knows the theory and the evidence.   But I'd be happy to look at your 8 ways.   What do you have?

(YE creationist Gerald Ardsma's way of dealing with the evidence, compared to YE)

It's an  honest attempt to reconcile his YE beliefs with the evidence.    His integrity keeps him from denying the facts.

The same evidence I've been trying to share with you for a while now. Read the book Evolution's Achilles' Heels, Dr. Robert Carter, ed., please. I believe that you will enjoy the read, whether you agree with it or not. It is by nine different Ph.D's on ...

1. Natural Selection
2. Genetics and DNA
3. The Origin of Life 
4. The Fossil Record
5. The Geologic Record
6. Radiometric Dating
7. Cosmology and the Big Bang
8. Ethics and Morality

Evolution's Achilles' Heels. Kindle Edition. 

And, all of these areas are with SIGNIFICANT flaws!

[BeyondET]

On 8/1/2023 at 9:24 AM, The Barbarian said:

 

Obviously Scripture does record exceptions of very long lives of men God chose to live longer, but He set the mans span at 70 regardless of what you say or choose to believe.

Why not just accept His word as it is?

 

A few years ago I learned about the importance of the thymus gland though it is the first to start aging in humans beginning in early to mid teens.

Slowly shrinks to nothing in later years to the point it hardly trains any new white blood cells.

The thymus performs one of the most important function of the immune system, training cells to fight diseases yet pretty much shuts down as people age.

It's not known Scientifically why it starts declining at such a young age but it's pretty apparent the limit started with the thymus.

Interestingly the human brain isn't fully developed until a person reaches 25 to 30 years old but the old thymus is way past its prime on its way out shrinking turning to fat.

Possibly humans long ago could of had a thymus that didn't decline suddenly in people's youth as it does today. The amount of exposure to the sun's radiation is another part of aging as well.

Some researchers say 150 is the absolute limit and others say can be alot longer.

In nature there's a few life forms that live for hundreds of years so its definitely not impossible for living flesh rather animal or man to live a long time imo.

Edited August 3, 2023 by BeyondET

[The Barbarian]

The real problem with aging is in loss of telomeres which occurs at each replication of DNA.   Eventually, this causes aging as cells lose functionality.

https://www.healthline.com/health/telomeres

The thymus involutes (gets smaller and less funcional) in all jawed vertebrates as they age.   It's mediated by sex hormones.   So not a human innovation.  Lampreys and hagfish (the jawless vertebrates) have "thymoid" bodies that have similar functions.   And that's where the evolutionary trail ends for now.

Humans live a lot longer than other apes.    One key to understanding this, is the fact that in humans, grandparents often assist in childcare.    That being so, there would be an evolutionary benefit to people living well past reproductive age, as it would increase the likelihood that a child would grow to adulthood.

 

[The Barbarian]

But as I showed Dad, that's not what God said.   I quoted Him saying that Adam had become like Him.    I believe Him.  You should, too.

(lots of scripture, with no apparent connection)

Sorry, none of that denies what God said in Genesis 3.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Actually, from the way you were talking, it sounded as though you were saying that Adam had become like God in more respects than God singled out.

I just quoted God's word.   That should be enough for you to believe it.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Precisely! That is why I adhere mostly to the concept of a water vapor canopy. Water and ice (unless it is EXTREMELY pure) refracts light, and the thicker it is, the more opaque the water becomes. HOWEVER, TRUE water vapor is an invisible GAS! It is TRANSPARENT to the light and does NOT refract the light that passes through it.

That won't work, either.   The layer would have to be many miles thick, which would mean gravity would pull it to Earth as it does today.   There's just no way to make that unscriptural idea work.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. 

Genesis 9: 3 And every thing that moveth and liveth shall be meat for you: even as the green herbs have I delivered them all to you:  4 Saving that flesh with blood you shall not eat.

So God told Noah that he could eat anything that moved, but he could not consume blood. 

These first few verses of Genesis 9 include God's blessings and commands to Noah and his sons. These instructions are also meant for the generations that will follow from them. In the previous verse, God made clear that humanity was free to eat any kind of creature that moved. This would include birds, fish, beasts, and creeping things. Whether or not mankind was specifically allowed to eat animals prior to flood, they are given specific permission now to do just that.

However, while God does allow man the ability to eat animal flesh, He includes a restriction: Humans are not to eat the blood of these animals along with their flesh. The verse describes the blood as the animal's life. Later, under the Law of Moses, Israelites will be required to very carefully drain the blood from animals before consuming them. This deep respect for blood is the first step in a long process, establishing the symbolism of Christ's sacrifice for human sin on the cross.

https://www.bibleref.com/Genesis/9/Genesis-9-4.html

 

Edited August 3, 2023 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

Scientists built a model of a pterosaur.  It flies well.   There are birds with higher wing loading today, and they fly just fine.   I'd be willing to look at your calculations, though.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

A new analysis of the largest of pterodactyls suggests they were too big and their muscles too weak to vault into the air and fly. Instead, they were right at the upper limit of animal flight and needed a hill or stiff breeze so they could soar like hang gliders."

So the very largest of pterosaurs were right at the limit of animal flight.   That means the smaller ones were able to fly in an atmosphere like we have today.   Quetzalocoatis instead had to rely on wind to rise and could then glide like some animals today.   This confirms what I told you.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Actually, the GTE (the general theory of evolution) IS flawed ... CONSIDERABLY, whether Dr. Wood recognizes it or not! The STE (the special theory of evolution), which I call "genetic variation," is part of God's creative genius. Within "kinds," God MEANT for variations to occur! It helps organisms to adapt to changes in their environments! It also helps to "weed out" all the flaws within the natural changes to a species.

That's only half the reality.  The other reality is mutation.   Most mutations don't do much of anything.   A few are harmful.   And a very few are useful.  Natural selection, as you indicate, sorts it out.   And so evolution procedes.   As you suggest, God built this capability into living things.   And there's a good reason.  Turns out, evolution is more efficient than design.

Engineers are now copying evolution to solve problems that are too difficult and complex for design.    They are called "genetic algorithms", and they are very useful for those problems.   Turns out, God knew best, once again.   He chose evolution which is simple and efficient.  

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/731522

As scientists look at the apparently complex universe, it turns out that  the laws and processes that make it work are beautiful and elegant.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Evolution's Achilles' Heels. Kindle Edition. 

And, all of these areas are with SIGNIFICANT flaws!

That's a testable belief.   Find the flaw you think is most compelling and we'll take a look at it.   On the other hand, if you don't understand it well enough to present it here, what makes you think it's right?

 

Edited August 3, 2023 by The Barbarian

[Retrobyter]

15 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The real problem with aging is in loss of telomeres which occurs at each replication of DNA.   Eventually, this causes aging as cells lose functionality.

https://www.healthline.com/health/telomeres

The thymus involutes (gets smaller and less funcional) in all jawed vertebrates as they age.   It's mediated by sex hormones.   So not a human innovation.  Lampreys and hagfish (the jawless vertebrates) have "thymoid" bodies that have similar functions.   And that's where the evolutionary trail ends for now.

Humans live a lot longer than other apes.    One key to understanding this, is the fact that in humans, grandparents often assist in childcare.    That being so, there would be an evolutionary benefit to people living well past reproductive age, as it would increase the likelihood that a child would grow to adulthood.

 

Shalom, The Barbarian.

Well, you're making a fatal flaw: We are NOT apes. Also, "the WHOLE CREATION groaneth together" because of MAN'S sin and its consequences of death and decay! So, it would not be surprising if Adam's curse of death was visited the same way as on other created beings, such as "jawed vertebrates."

There ARE many changes that take place at the cellular level, but they have ALWAYS occurred within the same family/genus "kind." Creationists believe in an "evolutionary ORCHARD," not an "evolutionary TREE." And, natural selection works to LIMIT the number of changes, not to help it along. Furthermore, the "mutations" that have been observed, when they produce a "positive" outcome, work by BREAKING something, not ADDING new information to the process!

And, since we are made in God's image, we, like God, are to CARE for His Creation. So, we are commanded to "love one another," which means that we are to be INVOLVED with one another, and SPEND TIME with others, particularly our own children and grandparents! We are MEANT to care for our world, as its CARETAKERS! We were sent from the garden to TILL the ground, and we have not been released from the general CARE of the plants and the earth that we knew in the garden! We are still given the work of "dressing and keeping" the environment in which God put us! Just because we "fell away" (WALKED AWAY) from God as a people and many have forgotten that He even exists, atheists being the worst - thinking they don't even NEED a "God," does NOT relinquish our responsibilities to HIM and to others around us! And, He has made us "SOCIAL" creatures, giving us the INSTINCTS to "have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." That's not just "to rule over them" as in "conquest"; but "to care for them" as in "RESPONSIBILITY!"

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Well, you're making a fatal flaw: We are NOT apes.

We are.   In fact, humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either of us is related to any other ape.

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Also, "the WHOLE CREATION groaneth together" because of MAN'S sin and its consequences of death and decay!

That certainly does not say that God punished innocent animals to get even with man for his sins.

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

There ARE many changes that take place at the cellular level, but they have ALWAYS occurred within the same family/genus "kind."

Even informed YE creationists admit that there is "very good evidence" for common descent.   They just prefer their interpretation of scripture to the evidence.   But they are honest enough to admit the evidence shows otherwise.

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Creationists believe in an "evolutionary ORCHARD," not an "evolutionary TREE."

That's a testable assumption.   Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily related, and I'll see if I can find a transitional form between them.  What do you want to pick?

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Furthermore, the "mutations" that have been observed, when they produce a "positive" outcome, work by BREAKING something, not ADDING new information to the process!

No, that's a common assumption, but it's wrong in two ways.    First, every new mutation in a population adds information to the population.   Would you like me to show you the numbers for a simple case?     Second, new genes often come about by fixing something that's broken.    Learn about it here:

New genes from non-coding DNA

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0180.pdf

Non-coding DNA is what creationists sometimes call "junk DNA."

3 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

And, since we are made in God's image, we, like God, are to CARE for His Creation. So, we are commanded to "love one another," which means that we are to be INVOLVED with one another, and SPEND TIME with others, particularly our own children and grandparents! We are MEANT to care for our world, as its CARETAKERS!

I'm pleased to see you write that.   It's something I see so rarely from YE creationists.

 

[The Barbarian]

And you were going to show us one of those "Achilles' Heels" from your guy's book so we could take a look and see if he's right.    Which one do you want to have us look at?

 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

On 3/3/2023 at 7:53 AM, IgnatioDeLoyola said:

Dear Board Members,

It is genuinely fascinating, as a Christian, to study the history of science and how religious belief has played into it. Often in modern religion vs science debates, this history gets lost or forgotten.

The reality is, the vast majority of western scientists prior to the 20th Century were devout Christians. Many from the east were from other Abrahamic faiths. These faiths informed how and why they approached scientific inquiry. Up until the 19th Century for example, it was widely assumed by most scientists that fossils were remains of animals killed in the flood of Genesis (chapters 6 - 9). The big questions is, why did these assumptions and beliefs change, even though their faith in God didn't?

The reason is, as evidence from the fossil record accumulated, it started to challenge the beliefs and assumptions of these faithful scientists. Most of all, it started to pose the following questions, that I'd love any YEC to try to answer in modern day:

1. Why are modern animals not found in the fossil record?

As fossils began to be found, scientists assumed that they were of creatures that were as yet undiscovered, but nevertheless had modern-day equivalents. As more exotic fossils were found (Dinosaurs, etc.), scientists began to theorise that perhaps these were the remains of creatures that had died out in Biblical times, but were nevertheless contemporary with man.

But as more and more fossils were found, scientists became more and more unsettled. The simple reason was, the vast majority had no modern day equivalents. They weren't even close to modern-day creatures. They represented totally different genera, families, sub-phyla of creature.

Scientists had assumed that two of each and every species or genus had been taken into Noah's Ark, and that all creatures alive in modern times had descended from these creatures. Yet the animals that were left behind and died in the flood bore little or no resemblance to these descendants. How was this possible?

In fact, modern creatures found in the fossil record are very much the exception. So called "fossil-animals" (such as crocodiles for example) represent a tiny percentage of animals alive today. This made scientists doubt that the flood had caused the fossil record. If you are a YEC, what is your explanation?

2. Why are humans not found in the fossil record?

Much more troubling to scientists in the 18th and 19th centuries was the fact that human beings didn't exist in the fossil record. It is impossible to be sure exactly what animals were alive in Noah's time. But it is absolutely certain that one type of animal WAS around, and WAS killed by the flood - humans! In fact, wiping out the fallen and degenerate population of humanity was the whole point of the exercise.

Yet not a single human was found in the fossil record. When a Swiss scientist found a fossil that sort-of looked like a child in 1726, he was delighted, and called the fossil "homo diluvii testis" - man who bears witness to the flood. It turned out to be the fossil of an extinct species of giant salamander. 

300 years later, and not a single human has been found in the fossil record, anywhere, ever. Surely somewhere, amongst the dinosaurs and trilobytes, human beings must have existed? Nor have any human tools, implements, household items, clothes, or anything else been found. Some of these would have been very hardy and surely survived in some form. Yet not a single trinket has been discovered among fossils.

3. Why are the vast majority of fossils sea animals?

Another fact greatly troubled scientists as fossils were discovered. The vast majority were of sea creatures, not land animals. Of course this is readily explainable by modern evolutionists: the sea and its formation of sedimentary rock is a perfect place for fossils to be created naturally - much moreso than land. But at the time the assumption was that the fossil record was created by the flood, which drowned land-based creatures. Noah didn't have to have an aquarium aboard this ark.

Doubtless some sea creatures would have died. "All the springs of the great deep burst forth," the bible says - that sounds like something that might cause considerable water pollution and tumult and kill quite a few marine animals. But the fact remains that, while some sea creatures would have died and been part of the fossil record, every single land animal died through the flood.

Yet, the fossil record is about 95% marine fossils (mostly shellfish), 4.75% plants and algae, 0.2% insects, 0.015% fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, etc.

If the fossil record were formed through the flood, why is this?

4. Why has the fossil record been precisely sorted?

Finally, as radiometric dating techniques started to gain traction, scientists were able to approximate the age of fossils. Even before this date however, they had noticed an unsettling fact: groups of species were found in the same layers or strata together, and didn't tend to appear in others.

As dating techniques started to be used, scientists discovered that creature ONLY appeared between certain dates of rock, and NEVER in others. Many YECs doubt radiometric dating techniques for various reasons, but even if radiometric dating is wrong, why are species only found between certain "dates"?

Moreover, the order of the record didn't lend itself to natural explanations. For example, hydrological sorting in a flood would put larger creatures being at the bottom and smaller at the top. But there was no such "sizing" order to the fossil record, and if there was an average trend, it would be the other way around. Why then has a dinosaur never been found outside Mesozoic rock? Why have mammals only been found in rocks dating up to 65 million years old? What possible force of nature could account for this?

Conclusion

As a Christian, I would genuinely love to hear the views on YECs on all of this. However, there is a wider point.

Theories such as evolution by natural selection didn't come about in a vacuum. They were products of an age where the evidence being examined by devoutly Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc. scientists was already revealing huge inconsistencies in the theory that the fossil record, and the changes in species and life it represented, could be explained by Noah's flood and the literal reading of the account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2.

Scientists genuinely believed, as the looked for fossils, that they would find overwhelming evidence of Noah's flood and biblical archaeology. But instead they found the opposite. Their predictions of what they would find based on their biblical or quranic beliefs didn't pan out at all. In many cases, they found the exact opposite. And these scientists, though devout, believed in the scientific method of making predictions and examining evidence based on these.

Perhaps any YECs on this forum could help out where these many great scientists failed?

As an OEC, I wrote a topic some time ago that Noah's Flood was a large local flood, not a global flood. This view agreed with the Bible and the Science of the natural world, e.g. Geology. To make it a global flood, you would have to add a number of additional miracles to the biblical text. There are knowledgeable Christians and Theologians who share this view which explains the copious amount of flood stories worldwide.