Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Yes, but those dates were not done using Carbon. Carbon-14 is unreliable past a certain amount of time. There are other atoms with much longer half lives which were likely used to get those dates. Radiometric dating does not supply evidence for YECism. It, like every other physical science, points to an old universe.
No, creationists had fossils tested that were supposedly millions of years old. If that was indeed the case, you'd expect near 0 C-14. They actually got dates in the 50,000 range, which is just below the 80,000-100,000 year limit. As for radiometric dating pointing to an old universe, in order to test that way you have to assume things about the past (like that there was 0 of the daughter element when the rock was put there), and so it cannot "prove" the Earth is old. Like I said, we have tested rocks of known ages (the rocks produced as a result of the St. Helen's eruption) and have gotten dates hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years older than we know for a fact they are.
No, creationists had fossils tested that were supposedly millions of years old. If that was indeed the case, you'd expect near 0 C-14. They actually got dates in the 50,000 range, which is just below the 80,000-100,000 year limit. As for radiometric dating pointing to an old universe, in order to test that way you have to assume things about the past (like that there was 0 of the daughter element when the rock was put there), and so it cannot "prove" the Earth is old. Like I said, we have tested rocks of known ages (the rocks produced as a result of the St. Helen's eruption) and have gotten dates hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years older than we know for a fact they are.
Source? Anecdotal evidence does not make for a solid ground.
Also, more than likely the carbon dating producing wrong ages in the rocks comes from materials that have been circulating in the Earth for millions of years. They were then blew out of a volcano and solidified. Makes perfect sense.
What about all the other rocks not produced from volcanoes whose layering once again points to an old Earth?
Edit: And yes, there is nothing ever 100% proven in science unless it's a complete mathematical proof which itself is a priori. The problem with Young Earth Creationism, however is that the available evidence points nowhere towards a young Earth. All of the evidence we have states the world and universe are far older. I mean, the sheer distance between stars alone confirms this. The light we are seeing from many stars has taken well, well over 6,000 years to arrive here.
__________________ Causing confusion one avatar at a time.
"You weren't there" is a rather fallacious argument. You might as well assume the entirety of history has not happen. In fact, I can tell you that the world was created exactly as it was, with everyone's memories completely intact, last Thursday.
Genesis being the foundation for the entirety of Christian truth is also a tired argument. The spiritual truth contained within the account does not become diminished with the discovery of modern scientific knowledge. The death of humanity's perfect conscience came about because of the fall. They fell into sin. Jesus showed up and saved everyone. The end!
You do not have to depend on a literal reading of the creation account to recognize the spiritual truth of Christianity. There are plenty of allegorical readings of Genesis that retain the truth and agree with modern science.
Jesus Himself had a literal reading of Genesis, and that is on the foundation of His Ministry.
As for your assertion that you cannot observe the past, and that is a tired argument. No, it is not. Science is based on observations and experiments in the present. Only scientific observations can be accepted as truth, and that does indeed include historical accounts. We don't have any historical or scientific accounts that are older than the Bible says the Earth is, so therefore it cannot be proven beyond doubt that the Bible isn't true.
Source? Anecdotal evidence does not make for a solid ground.
Also, more than likely the carbon dating producing wrong ages in the rocks comes from materials that have been circulating in the Earth for millions of years. They were then blew out of a volcano and solidified. Makes perfect sense.
What about all the other rocks not produced from volcanoes whose layering once again points to an old Earth?
Edit: And yes, there is nothing ever 100% proven in science unless it's a complete mathematical proof which itself is a priori. The problem with Young Earth Creationism, however is that the available evidence points nowhere towards a young Earth. All of the evidence we have states the world and universe are far older. I mean, the sheer distance between stars alone confirms this. The light we are seeing from many stars has taken well, well over 6,000 years to arrive here.
There are models where starlight can get here in in 6,000 years Earth time, and also if God used "observed time" as opposed to "calculated time," then the stars could indeed have been indeed first seen (and therefore "created") on Day 4.
As for young-earth arguments: answersi ngenesis.org/radio/pdf/youngworld.pdf (parsed)
Jesus Himself had a literal reading of Genesis, and that is on the foundation of His Ministry.
How do you know this?
As for your assertion that you cannot observe the past, and that is a tired argument. No, it is not. Science is based on observations and experiments in the present.
This seems to contradict your idea below, which says "historical accounts" are accepted as scientific.
Only scientific observations can be accepted as truth, and that does indeed include historical accounts. We don't have any historical or scientific accounts that are older than the Bible says the Earth is,
But we do.
so therefore it cannot be proven beyond doubt that the Bible isn't true.
I don't see how this conclusion follows from your premises as they are contradictory.
Also, since "you weren't there" isn't a tired argument, let's take that into consideration here. How do you know the creation account is true? How do you know that the Bible is true? After all, you weren't there when it is written. You weren't there when the Earth was created. For all you know, it's all wrong. After all, you weren't there.
__________________ Causing confusion one avatar at a time.
This seems to contradict your idea below, which says "historical accounts" are accepted as scientific.
Also, since "you weren't there" isn't a tired argument, let's take that into consideration here. How do you know the creation account is true? How do you know that the Bible is true? After all, you weren't there when it is written. You weren't there when the Earth was created. For all you know, it's all wrong. After all, you weren't there.
The Bible says on the subject (2 Timothy 3:16, KJV):
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
and (1 Thessalonians 2:13, KJV):
13For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
As for how I know the creation account is true, I believe that the Bible is Word of God, the perfect witness to history (and maker of this section), and this God cannot lie for He is perfect.
The Bible says on the subject (2 Timothy 3:16, KJV):
Alright, so I don't see anything in there that says "Genesis is literal." It merely reinforces the fact that Scripture is to be used as a basis for doctrine and teaching.
and (1 Thessalonians 2:13, KJV):
Again, nothing about the creation account being literal is there.
As for how I know the creation account is true, I believe that the Bible is Word of God, the perfect witness to history (and maker of this section), and this God cannot lie for He is perfect.
Ok, so there isn't really much that can be questioned in that area if you believe the Bible is a perfect witness to history. But, you said that God does not lie and in that we agree. So, why then would God make a universe where there is an abundance of evidence for something that directly contradicts a literal reading of the creation account?
__________________ Causing confusion one avatar at a time.
Alright, so I don't see anything in there that says "Genesis is literal." It merely reinforces the fact that Scripture is to be used as a basis for doctrine and teaching.
Again, nothing about the creation account being literal is there.
Ok, so there isn't really much that can be questioned in that area if you believe the Bible is a perfect witness to history. But, you said that God does not lie and in that we agree. So, why then would God make a universe where there is an abundance of evidence for something that directly contradicts a literal reading of the creation account?
He created a universe that was already fully functioning. If you examined Adam on the first day, you'd probably come to the conclusion that he was at least a young adult of 20 years, if not 30 or 40 years old. In order to create a mature universe, it would have to give some appearance of age. This isn't lying, it means God didn't want us living in a primordial soup. If the universe came about by natural processes, it is indeed several billions of years old because that is how long it would take if God simply let natural processes run their course except in rare instances. That would be a deistic outlook (the only other outlook I think makes any sense). However, we know from the fact that God created a mature universe doesn't mean it is indeed billions of years old.
He created a universe that was already fully functioning. If you examined Adam on the first day, you'd probably come to the conclusion that he was at least a young adult of 20 years, if not 30 or 40 years old. In order to create a mature universe, it would have to give some appearance of age. This isn't lying, it means God didn't want us living in a primordial soup. If the universe came about by natural processes, it is indeed several billions of years old because that is how long it would take if God simply let natural processes run their course except in rare instances. That would be a deistic outlook (the only other outlook I think makes any sense). However, we know from the fact that God created a mature universe doesn't mean it is indeed billions of years old.
That is the Omphalos hypothesis, which states that God created the universe with the appearance of age. You claim that it is not lying, but your justification is that it's because God did not want us living in "primordial soup."
God is not a liar, nor is he the author of confusion. The Omphalos hypothesis clearly creates confusion. You are agreeing that the evidence of a physical universe disagrees with a literal reading of Genesis. You also agree that God is not a liar, and I assume not the author of confusion.
So, aside from not wanting us not living in a "primordial soup" why would God possibly create two different accounts of creation (the creation itself and the creation story) so drastically different from one another? To do so would be to deny humans their God-given gifts of curiosity, reason, and intelligence. We have gained knowledge in over the centuries to truly discover that which makes up our universe, and it's not in tune with a literal reading of Genesis.
__________________ Causing confusion one avatar at a time.
That is the Omphalos hypothesis, which states that God created the universe with the appearance of age. You claim that it is not lying, but your justification is that it's because God did not want us living in "primordial soup."
God is not a liar, nor is he the author of confusion. The Omphalos hypothesis clearly creates confusion. You are agreeing that the evidence of a physical universe disagrees with a literal reading of Genesis. You also agree that God is not a liar, and I assume not the author of confusion.
So, aside from not wanting us not living in a "primordial soup" why would God possibly create two different accounts of creation (the creation itself and the creation story) so drastically different from one another? To do so would be to deny humans their God-given gifts of curiosity, reason, and intelligence. We have gained knowledge in over the centuries to truly discover that which makes up our universe, and it's not in tune with a literal reading of Genesis.
I am not saying that all evidence points to an old universe. I am saying some of it does, but there is plenty that points to a younger Earth. Comets have a life expectancy of around 100,000 years and most show an age of around 10,000 years. Naturalists get around this by saying that there is an Oort Cloud that we cannot see that gives us new comets. This hasn't been observed to be true, and if can't be observed, it isn't science. It doesn't mean that it isn't there, it just means that there is plenty of reason to doubt its existence. There is also the fact that at the sun's present rate of shrinking, if extrapolated out as uniformitarianianism assumes, means that a few hundred million to a couple billion years ago, the Earth would have been consumed by the sun, and also the moon is slowly moving away from the Earth to the point that at some point in a long age hypothesis it was actually touching the surface of the Earth. There are several theories on how you can get around these facts, but they cannot be proven and therefore must be taken on faith (which is why there are new theories all the time because people can't maintain the faith in the old one).
Linear Mode
