Lago PARANOIA wrote:From a political perspective, why did modern YEC decided to center what little science there is in their movement around Noah's Ark? That's just a baffling decision, because from a strict scientific perspective it's probably the most mockable and indefensible part of the Bible. Why not, oh, the plagues of Egypt or biblical longevity?
You're coming at this backwards. First, take let's their interpretation of the bible timeline as fact (everything from here on assumes that). Now, take carbon dating as also correct observations. How do you reconcile the two?
Obviously, something must be off in our carbon dating model. And since everything up to about 6000 years ago tends to match up, and everything before that doesn't, something must have happened 6000 years ago. Conveniently though, we know of a global event 6000 years ago which profoundly altered the world: the flood.
So, in proper scientific form, we want to test that theory. One way to do so might be to find an artifact which we know is pre-flood, and show that it also tests as millions of years old. Again conveniently, we have records of something just like that, along with a location for it: the Ark. Which is why YECs are very keen on actually finding it.
So, in answer to your question: they aren't doing this because it's an easy sell, They're doing this because it's a good-faith effort to explain what they see as a significant discrepancy. Like Joseph Priestly, they are actually incorrect, but that doesn't make their methods wrong.
Of course, there are also a bunch of loudmouths who don't understand that, and think that just yelling "Noah's Ark!" will somehow prove that science is all a lie. They are bad people who should feel bad, and you should look down on their willful idiocy. (There are also some people like that with real science too, and that they happen to support something correct should not excuse them from the same scorn.)