Are ID/YECs right about anything?

I remember questioning what Flew meant by 'God' some time ago now and challenging some of his assertions. I don't remember there being much if any 'discussion' about it.

Yes, and we even went through one of the books Flew cited in support and discussed it at length on MindWalk's forum (David Conway’s argument for God’s existence in his book The Recovery of Wisdom: From Here to Antiquity in Quest of Sophia). I believe we also discussed Richard Swinburne's book The Existence of God, too, although not as extensively.

I believe we ended up agreeing to disagree.

   Wait, where do you(Stephen and tbwp suggest the material "comes from"? Is it "many kilometers deep" of meteorite strikes that are supplying the material? Time passing and wind blowing and plants decaying do not produce "more material". 
   I say in the beginning God Created the heavens and the Earth. So does TM. Where do you say all this extra material came from to stack up "many kilometers deep" strata?

Stephen_33's comment was not about initial creation of heavens & earth, but in reference to flood geology. The 5-6 miles thick blanket of strata globally, what is the Pre-Flood source of that? Even if you deeply erode every surface on a Pre-Flood earth, you wouldn't get 5-6 miles of sediment. And the thick sediment that gets laid down worldwide during the initial stages of a global flood, then where does the new sediment laid down on top of that come from? For example, the Tapeats Sandstone is believed by many to be the start of the flood and you see this Sandstone worldwide, but if it covers worldwide, then what is left to erode? There would only be Tapeats Sandstone available to erode for the next stage of the flood after the flood initially deposited Tapeats Sandstone, but instead of Tapeats Sandstone we see a thick sequence of Bright Angel Shale next in the flood. But where did the shale come from if the only thing available to erode was the sandstone that the flood deposited initially? And then where did the worldwide limestones come from above the shale in the next stage of the flood, if there was only shale available to erode? And so on, and so forth.

***But a more fundamental issue is answering Post #64

@TruthMuse, what you don't seem to like is that I agree with you about abiogenesis and the origin of life (which includes the origin of 'coding'), but I don't agree with you about other things (such as evolution and the age of the earth). 

***You are the one who refuses to acknowledge observational 'evidence right in front of your face' by continuing to evade meeting my challenge to you in post #64

I will repost #64 again for your convenience:

@TruthMuse, you made the claim that you look at the same observational evidence like everyone else, but just don't have the same interpretation. I disputed that this is what you are doing, but said I would give you the benefit of the doubt. So you've been given the chance to provide a better (or equally good) explanation of the *same* observational evidence... Can you do it or not? Can you truly back up your claim or not?

*Let's take....for example: The further ocean floor basalt rocks are from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the greater the radioactive decay observed in those rocks. The age of those rocks based on radioactive decay (let's call it the "purported age," since you dispute that)---the "purported age" of those rocks based on radioactive decay rates is what we would expect them to be if the seafloor has been spreading at the same rate that we *directly* observe and measure it to be spreading today. For example, the slope of the line in the graph... is 2.1 centimeters per year. This is comparable to the rate of seafloor spreading that we *directly* observe and measure today. Now that is a remarkable coincidence. And the most straightforward explanation of that 'coincidence' is that the seafloor has been spreading at the rate of ~2 cm per year on average for ~180 million years.

*In order to dispute this, and to argue that ~4,550 km of seafloor spreading happened very rapidly on an earth that is only thousands of years old, then you need to explain how seafloor spreading could occur at a rate of ~0.75-1.0 kilometers per year (if the earth is about 6,000 years old), or if you adopt the commonly held young earth belief that most seafloor spreading is the result of 'runaway' plate tectonics during a one year global flood, then you must account for a seafloor spreading rate of ~10 kilometers per day! Then you must further explain what could cause radioactive decay to accelerate by several orders of magnitude of what we observe today, so that it just so happens to produce the remarkable coincidence today of the "purported ages" and locations of the ocean floor rocks being what we would expect them to be if the seafloor was spreading for ~180 million years at the ~2 cm per year rate that we observe and measure today [and then also explain what would cause those accelerated rates to then revert back to today's observed rates]. Then finally, you must explain or otherwise account for how to dissipate all the heat that would be generated by such an accelerated rate of decay so the earth's oceans wouldn't boil away.

*If you can successfully do this, then, and only then, can you claim that you're relying on the same observational evidence as everyone else, but just interpreting it differently. 

***Can you meet the challenge or not?

(I will answer for you: no, you cannot provide an equal or better explanation of the observational evidence above. So no, a young earth "interpretation" does not account for the same observational evidence just as well as an 'old earth.' So like I said, you are not relying on the same observational evidence as everyone else and just interpreting it differently. More often than not, you simply dismiss, ignore or otherwise evade dealing with the observational evidence like you’ve done here by continuing to avoid meeting my challenge to you in the above post)

I don’t argue age of the earth I will grant you any time you think you need/want. So suggesting that this is a point of disagreement just shows that you are not reading what I say. My complaint about evolution is mind mindlessness suggesting that is an issue while saying we agree on coding suggests again you are not reading my points you are just being disagreeable,

   The problem is on those who deny the Biblical account. If they believe there are many kilometers of sediment that have been laid down over billions of years, they are the ones who have to account for the source of that material. Where did it come from? Decaying plant matter or eroded rocks don't produce material. Plants simply take material from the earth and live and return it when they die. That's not new material to make up their problematic kilometers.

No one, least of all me, is claiming that the huge amount of sedimentary rock was 'trucked in' from elsewhere. We live on a dynamic planet with a lot of volcanic and seismic activity. Most importantly we live on a water-world on which water is constantly being recycled.

The material that makes up many sedimentary rocks is eroded by rivers and carried down to the sea, then deposited and over long periods of time buried by more layers. In time those loose materials become mineralised into the sedimentary rocks we see. In the earliest age of the earth it was igneous (volcanic) rocks that were eroded in this way.

Other layers are made up of countless numbers of dead marine shellfish which form chalk and limestone layers if I remember.

And BTW - plants take in a certain amount of Carbon from Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere! Not all of a plant is formed from the soil in which it grows.

Unacceptable (and untrue; you argue against an 'old earth/universe' all the time). You have stated that you believe in a young earth and don't believe the earth is billions of years old. You have further stated that it's just a matter of using the same evidence and just interpreting it differently. So I'm waiting for you to prove it. If you want to talk about evolution, that's fine, we can do that too. But let's start with your position on the age of the earth and how you account for the observational evidence in post #86.

No, that seems to conflate the Bible with interpretations of it. Noah's Flood is the Biblical account. The belief that the fossil record is the result of Noah's Flood is *not* part of the Biblical account. That is an assumption that has practically become *dogma* among YECs.

But sediment source is just one of many problems with the NON-Biblical belief that the fossil record is the result of Noah's Flood. Post #86 presents a more fundamental problem that leading YEC scientists agree remains problematic: the problem of accelerated seafloor spreading and accelerated radioactive decay during a one-year flood to produce the observational evidence that we see. And among other things, the problem the massive amount of heat such accelerated decay would release--enough to melt the earth's crust and vaporize the oceans that the ark is supposed to be floating on (as well as cook Noah and his family):

To 'solve' this YECs have to invoke a series of miracles where God inexplicably accelerates and then decelerates seafloor spreading and radioactive decay and also dissipates all the heat. But that is an ad hoc 'solution' that is only appealed to in order to try to account for the observational evidence discussed in post #86. Sure, one can argue that God can do anything. But if the earth is truly only thousands of years old, then why would God accelerate radioactive decay and seafloor spreading and then decelerate them in such a way so that they coincidentally match each other and give the false appearance that the Earth is millions of years old (see Post #86)? That makes God a deceiver.

"That makes God a deceiver" - I've seen that issue crop up time and again regarding a number of subjects in which YEC's challenge the conventional explanations of natural phenomena.

   So you won't say where the sediment comes from, just demand that TM tells you?

Actually, we understand just fine the sediment sources for most strata. For example, we can trace the Coconino Sandstone sediment source to be from mountains to the east that were eroded as part of a fluvial river system. To give another example, the Queenston Delta--a 300 mile clastic wedge of sediment--we can trace to the weathering and erosion of a different set of mountains in what is now New York. To give another example, we can trace the cause of erosion of the Channel Scablands in Washington to a mega-regional flood of lake Missoula in Montana due to a failed ice dam. The ancient strandlines marking the water level of the lake are still visible today in the hills surrounding Missoula, MT. We can trace the sediment source locations via a number of features such as by comparing the chemical composition of various strata. What we don't see is evidence of a global flood as the cause. But again, this is the least of the problems (just one of many) with the NON-Biblical belief that the fossil record is the result of Noah's Flood. 

Post #86 & #91 is a more fundamental, large scale problem 

No, you're assuming that the sediment source was completely eroded when I never said that. In some cases it is in some cases it isn't. Sediment source is not a problem for an old earth; it's a problem for a one year global flood to generate blankets of miles thick sediment in such a short amount of time. And the evidence is also contradictory for a global flood model. For example, if you argue that surely a global flood would be catastrophically 'violent' and could surely erode that much sediment, then you have the problem that over 60% of the fossil record is fine grained muds, silts, and limestones that require quiet water to settle out. But if you have quiet water, then you can't have catastrophic erosion at the same time. The two are mutually exclusive. You can have one or the other (quiet or catastrophic water), but you can't have catastrophic and quiet water at the same time.

I believe in a young earth, that is not arguing for it, I have stated any time you want I'll grant, so how is that arguing for it? You have your beliefs about what you think you are seeing in observational evidence in post #86, you can believe whatever you want about what was going on millions of years ago, no matter how strongly you believe you are right, your beliefs don't equal facts.

Argue for it. Don't argue for it. Either way, you’ve provided no evidence to counter the observational evidence in existence. I will leave the matter open-ended then, should you change your mind and wish to address it at a later time. Until then, I will chalk this up to your inability to make good on your claim that you rely on the same observational evidence as everyone else, but just interpret it differently. To recap the observational evidence:

1. We directly observe and directly measure (in the here and now) seafloor spreading occurring today at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at the rate of a few centimeters per year. The Atlantic Ocean is getting wider by a few centimeters each year. 
2. We observe a correlation between ocean floor rocks and their distance from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge: the greater the distance from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the greater the amount of radioactive decay observed in those rocks.
3. We observe that radioactive elements decay at a predictable rate. These rates have been verified by trillions of measurements. We do not observe any change to these rates. We observe these rates to be constant even under extreme conditions. Extreme temperatures and pressures have no effect on these rates.
4. The "purported ages" of the ocean rocks based on these measured rates of decay show a correlation that increases with distance from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, from 0 years (at the Ridge) to ~150 million years for the rocks that are farthest away from the Ridge.
5. The "purported ages" of these rocks match what we would expect if the seafloor has been spreading at the current rate that we observe and measure today of a few centimeters per year.

Conclusion: the most straightforward explanation for this remarkable 'coincidence' is that radioactive decay rates have been constant (which matches what we observe), and that the ocean rocks farthest away from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge are indeed ~150 million years old (which matches the amount of decay we observe in these rocks, and which is further what we would expect if the seafloor has been spreading at the couple centimeters per year rate that we observe today).

You have provided no alternate explanation as good or better than the standard, accepted explanation. You have given no evidence to counter this, or to give us reason to question this explanation. So you are 0-1 at accounting for the observational evidence.

Example 2: Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs). Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are the remnants of viral genetic material that gets randomly inserted into our DNA as a result of viral infections. We observe that humans and chimps have ~100,000 ERVs in the same, corresponding locations in their genomes. The chance that any ONE same ERV would just so happen to coincidentally be inserted in the same location of the genome in both humans and chimps is ~1 chance in 10,000. The chance that this would happen twice is 10,000 x 10,000 = 1 chance in 100 million. The chance that it would happen 100,000 times by luck is 1 chance in 10,000^100,000, which is such an astronomically improbable number that it would be a miraculous occurrence on par with a functional RNA self-replicator spontaneously forming by chance abiogenesis. (And if you reject the latter on the basis of probability, then to not reject the former is special pleading).

Conclusion: the most straightforward explanation for the observation that ~100,000 different bits of viral genetic material are found in the same corresponding locations in the human and chimp genomes is that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, as the alternative that they independently acquired them in the same locations is so astronomically improbable on the level of the improbability of abiogenesis. In the past, you have proposed that God could have created humans and chimps independently according to a common design and independently put these ~100,000 different bits of viral genetic material in the same locations in the human and chimp genome. The problem with that proposal is that these are bits of viral genetic material leftover from viral infections that are *not* part of the original genome, and, therefore, could not be part of God's original creation. I suppose one could argue that God independently created the human and chimp genomes with these bits of viral genetic material to give the illusion that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, but then that makes God a deceiver again.

So unless you can provide an alternate explanation of this observational evidence that is better than or at least equal to the most straightforward explanation, than that makes 0-2 examples of observational evidence that you are unable to account for.

Language and a code that causes functional complex work are signs, pieces of evidence of a mind at work. Rock placement could have a million different things causing that, you want to take some observations and claim you now know what occurred millions/billions of years ago have it, but without a doubt, more than one cause could be in play for almost everything you use to do that with.