Arguments Against Old Earth Theory

Instead of linking to a 1 hour 7 minute video, how about you provide the best argument - as you see it - for a geologically young earth? And then explain why that should be considered more valid than the concordance of evidence - radiometric, chemical, luminscent, plaeomagnetic and others - for a 4.54 billion year old earth, as provided by our current understanding of geology.

The current estimate of the age of the earth has been arrived at after nearly 200 years of inquiry, argument, challenge, counter-challenge and technological advancement. Some of the earliest geologists who were involved in this went out deliberately looking to validate a relatively recent 'creation' and the Biblical creation account. Others went out to validate an infinitely old earth.

The evidence though, along with their own intellectual honesty, led them to very different conclusions.

HERE is a brief introduction to the topic.

ClothedInGrace said:

I'm not going to act like I understand all of the arguments for or against an Old Earth, but I found this man's presentation to be very enlightening.

Click to expand...

Like Gene mentions, in a formal debate you are expected to present the argument in your own words. Expecting people to watch a 1 hour video isn't the type of discussion we have in these threads.

However, we do enjoy new posters and hope that you find your time here to be enlightening.

The basic idea is that secular scientists bring a lot of assumptions into their dating methods that aren't necessarily true. Regardless of the arguments for or against an Old Earth, I will always choose to be a fool who has faith in God's word over man's wisdom. He knows more about creation than any man, because He did it! We can work hard to figure out when the Earth and the Universe began, but our methods are ultimately as flawed as we are.

Enjoy!

Click to expand...

Young Earth Creationism is as much "man's wisdom" as an Old Earth is.

Also, proclaiming that something is an assumption is easy. Actually showing that it is an assumption is quite another. Perhaps you should do some background research and find out if those are actually assumed or if there is evidence to back them.

ClothedInGrace said:

The basic idea is that secular scientists bring a lot of assumptions into their dating methods that aren't necessarily true.

Click to expand...

I believe the term "secular scientists" is a bit confounding. By that I mean it gives the wrong impression. Although secular by definition excludes religion, it does not exclude people of any faith in performing science. Almost everything one does throughout ones life is indeed secular. Driving a car is secular, going to the grocery story is secular, washing the dishes is secular, paying ones bills is secular, calculating your taxes is secular, etc., etc., etc.. I hope you understand that science does not involve itself in looking for things to purposely question anyone's religious beliefs. What science discovers and learns is completely independent. None of the published scientific research says anything against any religion. All it addresses is science and only science.

Oh great, a youtube video, this will surely turn the scientific world on it's head.

ClothedInGrace said:

I'm not going to act like I understand all of the arguments for or against an Old Earth ...

Click to expand...

Well, it seems as if all the major exploration an mining companies in the world use old earth models. Those are the guys who actually spend money (billions) on doing exploration and mining. You know, put the money where the mouth is and all that.

Some video or two from someone who preaches won't change facts.

Awareness of the potential uncertainties in specific dating methods has come with experience. This has allowed an increasingly accurate assessments of the likely range of uncertainty in particular methods and contexts. Confidence in the overall accuracy of dating methods has come by comparisons of the degree of agreement between multiple independent and overlapping dating methods and the correspondence of their predictions with subsequent observations in the field.

ClothedInGrace said:

but our methods are ultimately as flawed as we are.

Click to expand...

That is a very large claim. I doubt you can produce substantive evidence to support it.

The scientific method evolved (and is arguably still evolving) to address the flaws we have as humans. Thus the requirement that observations be repeatable, and preferably quantifiable; that research results be subject to peer review; that accepted concepts be subject to further testing; all of these and more are ways in which human prejudices can be minimised and human limitations overcome.

RickG said:

I believe the term "secular scientists" is a bit confounding. By that I mean it gives the wrong impression.

Click to expand...

Indeed.
They're not secular, they're naturalists.

Hieronymus said:

Indeed.
They're not secular, they're naturalists.

Click to expand...

They are scientists, and science is secular by definition. You no more need to say "secular science" than you do "secular baseball". The rules for baseball are the same for all religious worldviews, and the rules of baseball do not include any mention of the supernatural nor any interaction with the supernatural. You don't get to say that a runner is safe simply because God told you so in a revelation, for example. You don't get to claim that a ball really was foul, but the devil is convincing you otherwise. Science is no different. You don't get to make up supernatural events to replace objective and observable natural processes.

Loudmouth said:

They are scientists, and science is secular by definition. You no more need to say "secular science" than you do "secular baseball". The rules for baseball are the same for all religious worldviews, and the rules of baseball do not include any mention of the supernatural nor any interaction with the supernatural. You don't get to say that a runner is safe simply because God told you so in a revelation, for example. You don't get to claim that a ball really was foul, but the devil is convincing you otherwise. Science is no different. You don't get to make up supernatural events to replace objective and observable natural processes.

Click to expand...

Scientific 'observations' are loaded with speculations 'explaining' the 'meaning' of what they've discovered, and is apt to change at a moments notice. But that's ok as much of it is just entertainment anyway.

OldWiseGuy said:

Scientific 'observations' are loaded with speculations 'explaining' the 'meaning' of what they've discovered, and is apt to change at a moments notice. But that's ok as much of it is just entertainment anyway.

Click to expand...

With respect to old earth observations what do you see see being discovered to change them?

Hieronymus said:

Indeed.
They're not secular, they're naturalists.

Click to expand...

I prefer the term "scientists" rather than secular or naturalists, as it is all inclusive of all walks of life. However, when referring to the discipline of science "secular" or "natural" would be proper. Just my opinion.

RickG said:

With respect to old earth observations what do you see see being discovered to change them?

Click to expand...

Scientific observations are constantly being reinterpreted.

OldWiseGuy said:

Scientific observations are constantly being reinterpreted.

Click to expand...

I think a better description would be improved, not reinterpreted.

OldWiseGuy said:

Scientific observations are constantly being reinterpreted.

Click to expand...

Again, with respect to the age of the earth, what "scientifically" is being reinterpreted?

RickG said:

Again, with respect to the age of the earth, what "scientifically" is being reinterpreted?

Click to expand...

Why that question?

OldWiseGuy said:

Why that question?

Click to expand...

Because you appear to present science as if it is all wrong and will be changed.

RickG said:

Because you appear to present science as if it is all wrong and will be changed.

Click to expand...

Actually I agree with science regarding the age of the earth.

OldWiseGuy said:

Actually I agree with science regarding the age of the earth.

Click to expand...

And what science do you disagree with? A specific example please.