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.
Inside those dust sized crystals is radioactive materials and daughter products.
Growing into adulthood isn't an instantaneous process either. Yet I think most on all sides believe Adam was created as a fully grown adult.
That's not how any of the YEC or OEC who researched nature saw it. Embedded age doesn't show up in any antediluvian literature I've read.
I believe in the Consensus of the Fathers, whom among all contended to a Young Earth. I also base my interpretation of Young Earth on my study of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation and Answers in Genesis.
Method? I will sent you some books, but I am unsure what you mean by "method."
They do not have the Consensus of the Fathers, nor any Father that I know of.
Many! Germ Theory of Disease, Ulcers and Bacteria, and especially Continental Drift, which was ridiculed as pseudoscience when Alfred Wegener proposed the theory in 1912, but was later validated in the 1960s, becoming the fundamental concept in geology, and making the act of rejecting it considered pseudoscientific.
Who's methodology is the correct methodology? Science is about questioning things, and using new methods to find new things; if a "flawed methodology" works to prove a point, is it pseudoscientific at that point?
Then why is it considered scientifically disfavorable?
Yet, if Creationists use "beyond reasonable doubt," it is considered pseudoscientific, as it would be 'flawed methodology.' As I spoke on in a previous thread, Hubble said (The Observational Approach to Cosmology) that the apparent alignment of the Cosmic Microwave Background and our ecliptic (aka the precipice of being a 'special' planet or the center of everything in creation) could only be denied because it is 'unwelcome': "…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…. the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…. such a favored position is intolerable…Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.”
People outside of the faith assume that proving natural evidence of an old earth would disprove YEC, yet it wouldn't at all. I am still open to the Omphalos hypothesis, which asserts that within the past six to ten thousand years (in keeping with flood geology), and that the presence of objective, verifiable evidence that the universe is older than approximately ten millennia is due to the creator introducing false evidence that makes the universe appear significantly older. It would solve all issues of OEC [in the event of proving natural evidence of an old earth], and the visible light that appears to originate from far-off stars and galaxies (addressing the "starlight problem").
The Bible says that Adam was made of dust from the ground, but everyone in the Old Testament is made of dust, Abraham, Job, the psalmist etc. it's not really a statement about biological origins.
I'm just pointing out that Omphalos hypotheses are all fairly recent. OEC is fairly old and continuous hypothesis. It was the preferred hypothesis of medieval universities that taught nature. Omphalos comes after the invention of modern geology.
