is there scientific proof verifiable proof of a young earth? I need to know having doubts right now.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
creation vs evolution
- Thread starter applesnoranges
- Start date
- Status
KerrMetric
Well-Known Member
- Oct 2, 2005
- 5,171
- 226
- 64
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Having doubts? The young Earth concept is complete ignorant nonsense for kiddies to believe. All the evidence screams old Earth - there is nothing that says young Earth unless you are scientifically clueless.
Upvote
0
philadiddle
Drumming circles around you
are u doubting the age of the earth or your faith as a Christian?
Upvote
0
vossler
Senior Veteran
- Jul 20, 2004
- 2,760
- 158
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Whatever you do please don't allow man's ideas dominate your thinking. Trust God and His Word above all else. God speaks through His Word and behooves us to listen and not reinterpret it so that it aligns with worldly thinking. Trust Him and you can never go wrong. 
Upvote
0
Don't look at it as science vs. the Word of God as some Creationists frame it. Look at it as science (or reality) vs. the Creationist interpretation of the Bible. Which one is more likely to be wrong, something that changes to update and fix errors, or one that never changes inspite of all evidence. Remember that YECism was falisfied long before evolution came about, and science has only gotten more accurate from then on. Nearly all Creationist points now are based off of scientific inaccuracies like evolution violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. When one position must use falsehoods to support their side, then you know that side is probably not correct.
Upvote
0
shernren
you are not reading this.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Maybe if you could tell us a little more about what exactly your problem is, then we can help you. From the little bit you've posted here so far it sounds like someone has given you some information which seems to support evolution and/or an old earth, and you need to verify for yourself whether this information is true and if it is, what effect that should have on your faith.
In which case my questions would be:
- What exactly have you heard, and
- What do you think you would have to change if you found out that it was really true?
In which case my questions would be:
- What exactly have you heard, and
- What do you think you would have to change if you found out that it was really true?
Upvote
0
rmwilliamsll
avid reader
Then you are apparently listening to the right voices and reading the right things.
There is an excellent book on this exact topic _Paradigms on Pilgrimage_. It is the account by two brother's in law about how they learned that God does not teach a young earth in the Scriptures but rather it is the ideas of 19thC people as they tried to counter modern science. It is a good enough book to be essential reading on this problem. at least check out the amazon reviews.
Upvote
0
S
Servant222
Guest
Well, first, I think it is important to be reassured that our salvation does not require that we have the right answer to all of these questions, only that you accept that Jesus is Lord. Heaven help us if we have to score 100% on the exam of biblical interpretation.
Another given is that there is no definitive scriptural answer to this; for example, what exactly constitutes a day in the Bible is a matter of interpretation that has been debated for centuries. If centuries of scholars still have not come up with a definitive answer, I don't think that God expects us to.
Personally, I believe that there is overwhelming evidence for an old earth, and the explanations needed to support the notion of a young earth become ever more implausible as we learn more and more about the workings of the Universe.
There are innumerable posts here and elsewhere that detail the evidence for an old Earth; here are some of my favourites:
1. The vast amount of time evident in the Universe; for example, the fact that light from distant stars takes millions of years to reach us. The YEC's must rely on a changing speed of light to counter this, something that astrophysics does not seem to think is possible.
2. The many independent radioactive dating methods that consistently support an old earth. YECs need to invoke changing decay rates in many different elements to try and explain away these age dates, something that again does not seem to be supported by any research.
3. The Vostok and Greenland ice cores, which all contain hundreds of thousands of layers of ice that in themselves show vast amounts of time, and that independent isotopic analysis also show formed over long periods of time.
4. The difficulty of explaining how the entire Universe was formed in about a thousand years, NOT the 6000 years claimed by most YEC. Specifically, you have to remember that organized civilizations can be traced back to at least 3000 BC, or about 5000 years before present, and that the Universe then had to have been formed before that if you believe in a young earth.
5. The varved lacustrine deposits that contain thousands of individual layers of accumulated sediment that formed year after year. Just like tree rings, these layers can also be counted to determine their age.
6. The presence on the Earth's surface of vast thicknesses of sedimentary rock that most likely accumulated over millions of years, and that were then thrust up by forces related to plate tectonic movement, that acted over countless additional years.
As I've said before, it is important that we get issues like this right if we are to uphold the credibility of the Christian faith. I believe dogmatically holding on to the notion of an earth-centered Universe for thousands of years did not do the Christian faith any good; the present debates, if they are not resolved, have the ability to do similar harm.
Another given is that there is no definitive scriptural answer to this; for example, what exactly constitutes a day in the Bible is a matter of interpretation that has been debated for centuries. If centuries of scholars still have not come up with a definitive answer, I don't think that God expects us to.
Personally, I believe that there is overwhelming evidence for an old earth, and the explanations needed to support the notion of a young earth become ever more implausible as we learn more and more about the workings of the Universe.
There are innumerable posts here and elsewhere that detail the evidence for an old Earth; here are some of my favourites:
1. The vast amount of time evident in the Universe; for example, the fact that light from distant stars takes millions of years to reach us. The YEC's must rely on a changing speed of light to counter this, something that astrophysics does not seem to think is possible.
2. The many independent radioactive dating methods that consistently support an old earth. YECs need to invoke changing decay rates in many different elements to try and explain away these age dates, something that again does not seem to be supported by any research.
3. The Vostok and Greenland ice cores, which all contain hundreds of thousands of layers of ice that in themselves show vast amounts of time, and that independent isotopic analysis also show formed over long periods of time.
4. The difficulty of explaining how the entire Universe was formed in about a thousand years, NOT the 6000 years claimed by most YEC. Specifically, you have to remember that organized civilizations can be traced back to at least 3000 BC, or about 5000 years before present, and that the Universe then had to have been formed before that if you believe in a young earth.
5. The varved lacustrine deposits that contain thousands of individual layers of accumulated sediment that formed year after year. Just like tree rings, these layers can also be counted to determine their age.
6. The presence on the Earth's surface of vast thicknesses of sedimentary rock that most likely accumulated over millions of years, and that were then thrust up by forces related to plate tectonic movement, that acted over countless additional years.
As I've said before, it is important that we get issues like this right if we are to uphold the credibility of the Christian faith. I believe dogmatically holding on to the notion of an earth-centered Universe for thousands of years did not do the Christian faith any good; the present debates, if they are not resolved, have the ability to do similar harm.
Upvote
0
S
Servant222
Guest
Take Mt. Everest as an example. To get to its present configuration,
(a) the thousands of layers of sedimentary rock that make up Mt. Everest must have all been laid down, layer by layer, in the ancient sea that existed between the Indian and Asian continents.
(b) the Indian plate had to move north thousands of kilometres to collide with the Asian plate and close off the ancient sea.
(c) the collision between the two plates had to continue so that the world's highest mountain range, the Himalaya Range, could form, and Mt. Everest could be thrust up to its present height of 8,848 metres. Even over a time period of 1000 years, just this event alone would require uplift at about 9 metres per year!
To attribute all this to the Biblical flood would require the flood to have deposited thousands and thousands of layers of sediment, all with their own unique set of attributes, including fossil assemblages, and all over the world at the same time, and to have done all this without turbulence so that the fossils and all the subtle sedimentary features remained preserved.
God can do anything, including creating the earth in its present form in less than 1000 years, but why would he deliberately do this and plant all sorts of misleading evidence in the geologic record to suggest that it actually happened over millions of years?
Personally, I think we have a far greater God whose exquisitely created Universe speaks volumes to his order and logic, a process that started from eternity, and will continue to eternity.
(a) the thousands of layers of sedimentary rock that make up Mt. Everest must have all been laid down, layer by layer, in the ancient sea that existed between the Indian and Asian continents.
(b) the Indian plate had to move north thousands of kilometres to collide with the Asian plate and close off the ancient sea.
(c) the collision between the two plates had to continue so that the world's highest mountain range, the Himalaya Range, could form, and Mt. Everest could be thrust up to its present height of 8,848 metres. Even over a time period of 1000 years, just this event alone would require uplift at about 9 metres per year!
To attribute all this to the Biblical flood would require the flood to have deposited thousands and thousands of layers of sediment, all with their own unique set of attributes, including fossil assemblages, and all over the world at the same time, and to have done all this without turbulence so that the fossils and all the subtle sedimentary features remained preserved.
God can do anything, including creating the earth in its present form in less than 1000 years, but why would he deliberately do this and plant all sorts of misleading evidence in the geologic record to suggest that it actually happened over millions of years?
Personally, I think we have a far greater God whose exquisitely created Universe speaks volumes to his order and logic, a process that started from eternity, and will continue to eternity.
Upvote
0
S
Servant222
Guest
If the Earth really was formed in less than 1000 years (see above), then how do you explain the presence of Bristlecone Pines in California, some of which have been found to be about 5000 years old?
Furthermore, the White Mountains, where the Bristlecone Pines are found, are over 14,000 feet (4300 metres) high so they had to be formed and thrust up by plate tectonics before the pines even had a place to grow. All this in less than 1000 years.
Furthermore, the White Mountains, where the Bristlecone Pines are found, are over 14,000 feet (4300 metres) high so they had to be formed and thrust up by plate tectonics before the pines even had a place to grow. All this in less than 1000 years.
Upvote
0
Simply put, no. There is no scientific evidence that would indicate the existence of a young earth.
Upvote
0
pastorkevin73
Senior Member
Upvote
0
pastorkevin73
Senior Member
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
