TOP TEN Biblical Problems for Young Earth Creationism

Taodeching

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2020
1,540
1,110
51
Southwest
✟60,418.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

Video Summary:

Every day we are told the Bible teaches the earth is 6000 years old. But when we dive into the original Hebrew we find this idea of a young earth is not guaranteed in the Biblical texts.
 

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,647
11,691
54
USA
✟293,961.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private

Video Summary:

Every day we are told the Bible teaches the earth is 6000 years old. But when we dive into the original Hebrew we find this idea of a young earth is not guaranteed in the Biblical texts.

What does the video (or bible) say about radioactive dating of the Earth? That's how we actually know the age of the Earth. Otherwise why should this be in the science section?
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,229
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,960.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Video Summary:

Every day we are told the Bible teaches the earth is 6000 years old. But when we dive into the original Hebrew we find this idea of a young earth is not guaranteed in the Biblical texts.

Thanks for sharing!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taodeching
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,548
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,302.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship

Video Summary:

Every day we are told the Bible teaches the earth is 6000 years old. But when we dive into the original Hebrew we find this idea of a young earth is not guaranteed in the Biblical texts.

What is guaranteed? Everyone has their
own interpretation.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: HitchSlap
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Video Summary:
At #10, the author quotes ...

Genesis 17:17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?

... and says Abraham thinks it is "biologically impossible for someone to have a child past the age of one hundred."

Yet the author goes on to point out that Abraham's father Terah had Abraham when he was 130.

So why would Abraham think it is "biologically impossible"?

And in fact, Abraham went on to have eight children.

So if Abraham did indeed think that, then Abraham was wrong.

The author goes on to say that, when God told Abraham he was going to have a child, Abraham should have replied to God, "Many people alive are still having children in their old ages, so having a child at the age of one hundred is perfectly normal."

Of course, this reply is out of place, since the conversation would go like this:

God: Sarah is going to have a son.
Abraham: Many people alive are still having children in their old ages, so having a child at the age of one hundred is perfectly normal.

That's like telling your son he's going to get his drivers license at the age of sixteen, and he comes back with, "Many teenagers alive are getting their drivers licenses in their teens, so getting my drivers license at the age of sixteen is perfectly normal."

It doesn't make sense.

The author is basing his whole premise on the [incorrect] assumption that Abraham is thinking it is "biologically impossible" for he to have a child.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
At #9, IP (the author) makes the point that, since Genesis first says ...

Genesis 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.


... then goes on to say ...

Genesis 8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

... and concludes that it can't mean the entire surface of the globe, since most of the earth is still covered by water.

That, to me, is a pretty weak argument, since 71% of the earth was covered by water then; and is covered by water now.
 
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,119
KW
✟127,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

Video Summary:

Every day we are told the Bible teaches the earth is 6000 years old. But when we dive into the original Hebrew we find this idea of a young earth is not guaranteed in the Biblical texts.
A reasonable interpretation that YEC's don't accept and which in turn is the root of their denial and rejection of multiple sciences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taodeching
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,119
KW
✟127,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Would you, if you were a YEC?
I think the definition of YEC demands acceptance of a young earth. Todd Wood is a biologists and a creationist who believes that evolution is a valid theory, but I don't understand how he can rectify the connotative dissonance which it has create.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I think the definition of YEC demands acceptance of a young earth. Todd Wood is a biologists and a creationist who believes that evolution is a valid theory, but I don't understand how he can rectify the connotative dissonance which it has create.
From what little I read of him, he appears to believe exactly as I do about evolution's validity.

In other words, it is a rock-solid explanation of the diversity of life on the earth -- but it is wrong.

Put another way, it is highly convincing, but erroneous.

Evolution is like iron pyrite: highly attractive, highly convincing, but not in the way one thinks.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,119
KW
✟127,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
From what little I read of him, he appears to believe exactly as I do about evolution's validity.

In other words, it is a rock-solid explanation of the diversity of life on the earth -- but it is wrong.

Put another way, it is highly convincing, but erroneous.

Evolution is like iron pyrite: highly attractive, highly convincing, but not in the way one thinks.
No problem with that but it is wrong mainly for people who have a particular religious beliefs with a few exceptions.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No problem with that but it is wrong mainly for people who have a particular religious beliefs with a few exceptions.
But can you now see how a YEC can believe that evolution is both a viable theory and a wrong theory at the same time?

I'm on record as saying that I believe the theory of evolution:
  1. will get stronger and stronger
  2. will be linked to abiogenesis (the current belief is that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution)
  3. cannot be shown to be wrong by conventional science (e.g., it would take a time machine for that)
  4. will be explained by a special scientist so simply a child could understand it
And I'm not even a YEC.
 
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,119
KW
✟127,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But can you now see how a YEC can believe that evolution is both a viable theory and a wrong theory at the same time?
You do so because you believe that the bible settles it and which is why you and I do not have many disagreements.

I'm on record as saying that I believe the theory of evolution:
  1. will get stronger and stronger
  2. will be linked to abiogenesis (the current belief is that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution)
  3. cannot be shown to be wrong by conventional science (e.g., it would take a time machine for that)
  4. will be explained by a special scientist so simply a child could understand it
And I'm not even a YEC.
The YEC position is a 6000 year old earth which necessitates denial and rejection of not only evolution but all sciences that support evolution. You believe in a old earth or appearance of an old earth so you don't need to reject fossils or dating sciences or a host of other sciences.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The YEC position is a 6000 year old earth ...
Correct -- and I'm not bound to that interpretation.
Frank Robert said:
... which necessitates denial and rejection of not only evolution but all sciences that support evolution.
That I am bound to.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Correct -- and I'm not bound to that interpretation.
Au contraire, that is what you are bound to. You advocate a 6000 year old earth with the appearance of having matured further than expected for the time elapsed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If you accept an old earth why would you be bound to reject dating methods
Only insofar as they contradict the Bible, that's all.

Take zircon, for instance, which tells us the earth is 4.4 billion years old.

But all it says is that zircon is 4.4 billion years old.

It does not say the earth grew to be 4.4 billion years old.

Let's assume, just for the sake of arguing, that tomorrow, God creates an element with the following electron configuration: [Kr] 4d²5s²

How does that say the earth grew to be 4.4 billion years old?

(And come to think of it, how does that say the element itself is that old?)
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Au contraire, that is what you are bound to. You advocate a 6000 year old earth with the appearance of having matured further than expected for the time elapsed.
Um ... nyet.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums