I think the major stumbling stone here is format. Presentation and respect to belief. How one could present a challenge to belief with convincing physical proof and allows the evidence to stand while still allowing for another’s faith and belief.
You need a charismatic, Christian scholar and Scientist to preach the truth and preserve their faith by showing them that static faith isn’t God’s Plan. That’s dogma, not religion.
Having known a YEC with a near-genius intellect, a BS in biochem, and an MD, I am telling you right now that nothing is obvious evidence if it contradicts the Bible. The “God (or Satan) made it look as if it’s that way” argument will trump anything. Anything. If you value your time, and perhaps your sanity, don’t bother trying.
Logically speaking, if you begin with that premise why wouldn’t it trump everything? Other than Occam’s Razor, and the principle that a nonfalsifiable hypothesis is unscientific, there really is no way to disprove, e.g., Philip Gosse’s Omphalos Hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_(book)
A theory that the universe might be really old.
If you’re willing to accept as an axiom that God or Satan could plant false evidence that the world is older than it actually is, that’s logically consistent with any evidence you could cite that the world is billions of years old. The only reason to reject that axiom is philosophical- you don’t believe that God would deliberately try to deceive people, or you don’t believe that Satan exists or is powerful enough to do it. None of the philosophical objections could ever be proven, though.
it may deal with the immediate concern of defending the creationist’s position in the argument in question, but I believe it unravels a great deal more, theologically than it patches up;
If God created all kinds of fake fossil, cosmological and geological evidence to try to test us (or whatever), then how is he different from that other deceiver called Satan?
If Satan created all kinds of fake fossil, cosmological and geological evidence, for whatever purpose he had in mind, then how is he different from that other powerful creator called God?
Which is exactly my point. What’s yours?
No it doesn’t. The Bible, being inerrant, is an accurate account of the Creation. Whatever must have transpired to make the purported evidence fit this Truth is what happened. The Lord works in mysterious ways, hence the only trouble is our lack of understanding. The fossils are there, yes, but God can do anything. Who are we to judge His motivations? Whatever the reason, it is good, because God is Good, and all unfolds according to His Divine Plan.
See?
The Omphalos Hypothesis (see above) is that Adam had a navel (Greek omphalos), just because a navel is a design feature of an adult human; a navel in Adam’s case would have been a relic of a birth that never occurred – but then, everything else about him would have been a relic of a process of growth and maturation that never occurred. A created tree in Eden would have had growth rings, relics of past seasons that never happened. The hypothesis is that God decided to create the Universe as a going concern, including all the features it would have had if it were the product of more gradual processes, such as fossil relics of past stages of biological evolution that never took place. IOW, God wasn’t trying to deceive, confuse or test us, he was just trying to save time.
Oh, trust me, I’m more than familiar with these arguments; having dealt with them from both sides of the debate table (although not at the same time). Nowadays, I try to avoid them, because they just make me want to chew off my own head out of pure frustration.
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been in debate with a creationist who starts out saying “the Earth is really, really young! All the evidence supports this!”, then when challenged on some detail, suddenly switch to “well, it all looks old because God made it to look old”. Classic Orwellian doublethink. It makes me incredibly cross and I have to steer clear of it now.
Fact is though; if God mocked it all up to look old, and to look as if all life descended from a common ancestor, then we aren’t being all that dishonest in trying to study, understand and describe the picture the way it’s painted.
And the flaw in this reasoning is that it is based entirely on the unsupported assumption that (assuming for the moment we assume he existed as an actual historical individual) Adam was created with a navel. What if he wasn’t? What then?
Besides, when you start cooking up huge weaselly explanations for how “it’s not what it looks like! Honest!”, it’s usually because you’re wrong and you know it, but are too scared to admit it. Don’t you think?
I think it’s simply faith in the inerrancy of the Bible, and a lack of concern over, or even much interest in reconciling, the mental contortions needed to make it all hold together. There’s simply no need for all that questioning. God knows, and that is enough.
I tried that one in Sunday School class when I was about 13. The answer I got was “God tests you, but Satan tempts you.”
Seriously.
Did you notice that the professor’s name was Turok? 
Mind boggling to find the universe might be trillions of years old.
I worked with a girl once (she was in her late 20’s) who had been educated in Christian schools and had gone to a Christian four year college. I am not sure how the subject came up, but she stated that she believed that everything in the Bible was litteraly true. This stunned me a little; she was a bright girl and seemed normal otherwise. She went on to say that there simply was no evidence of evolution. She had been taught this all her life…no fossils had really been found, that evolution was really “just a theory” with no concrete evidence to back it up. (It’s a vast liberal media conspiracy!) It wasn’t that she was dismissing the evidence, she had been told that it didn’t exist. Period. I really didn’t know where to start, and it wouldn’t have mattered anyway, but it lowered my opinion of fudies even more that they would simply deny evidence rather than even try to explain it.
Just to add something to the conversation, wouldn’t it be useful for people to find what the more mainstream churches say about all this young earth and creationist debate? It may not talk specifically to Young Earth, but YE depends on a literal reading of the Bible, as opposed to a more interpretive one. After all, YE, ID, creationism all depend on literalism:
The Vatican’s chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design’’ isn’t science and doesn’t belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate raging in the United States.
The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design ideas alongside the theory of evolution in school programs was "wrong’’ and was akin to mixing apples with oranges. … In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne reaffirmed God’s role in creation, but said science explains the history of the universe.
"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly,’’ he wrote.
The 60-year-old cardinal now says that there need not be an inherent conflict between divine creation and evolution. He says that one is a matter for religion, the other for science, and that the two disciplines are complementary.
Schoenborn said: “Without a doubt, Darwin pulled off quite a feat with his main work and it remains one of the very great works of intellectual history. I see no problem combining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, under one condition - that the limits of a scientific theory are respected.”
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Vatican_issues_defence_of_evolution,_rejects_fundamentalist_creationism
In what many are calling a direct attack on the rising support for fundamentalist creationism in America, Cardinal Poupard, head of the Vatican Pontifical Council for Culture, stated that the Genesis description of God’s creation of the universe and Darwin’s theory of evolution are “perfectly compatible” if the Bible is properly interpreted.
“The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim,” he said, and that the point of Genesis is that “the universe didn’t make itself and had a creator.”
“The faithful should heed modern science and to guard against religion crossing over to fundamentalism if it ignores scientific reasoning.”
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=674042006
BELIEVING that God created the universe in six days is a form of superstitious paganism, the Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno claimed yesterday. … He described creationism, whose supporters want it taught in schools alongside evolution, as a “kind of paganism” because it harked back to the days of “nature gods” who were responsible for natural events.
In case there’s anyone who harbors any illusions about reasoning with a YEer on scientific grounds, take a look at these apologetic sites: Answers in Genesis, Creation Science and creation.org. And, if that’s not enough fun, take a look at Modern Geocentrism. BTW, my recollection is that the main proponent of the latter, Gerardus Bouw, has a Ph.D. in astronomy, but I can find no citation in a quick Google search to confirm that recollection.
Small typo. The third apologetic site is creationism.org. The link is correct.
Unfortunately, in my experience, most of the fundies who believe in creationism aren’t great fans of the Catholic church, to put it mildly. So, I am not sure these arguments in regards to how the Catholic church has come to terms with evolution will do any good.