New earth creation evidence

Not one person seems to even want to take a stab at the question. Non christian have these kinds of questions so I try to study it.

There are scientists currently who do not buy the long held view that the Grand Canyon was carved over many hundreds of millions of years, but was rather carved rather quickly by a massive deluge.

hmmm... where is it I read about a massive flood?

I can't post links yet but you can google it

retlaw said:

Not one person seems to even want to take a stab at the question. Non christian have these kinds of questions so I try to study it.

There are scientists currently who do not buy the long held view that the Grand Canyon was carved over many hundreds of millions of years, but was rather carved rather quickly by a massive deluge.

hmmm... where is it I read about a massive flood?

I can't post links yet but you can google it

Click to expand...

Wait!!!

I know this one....

Where did I read that?

Flood...flood...lots of water...everything with breath died...now here is that?

Genesis 6.17: For my part, I am going to bring a flood of waters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die.



Do I win anything?
A house?
A car?
A sofa?
A doughnut?

Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

Now there's a good link!

This subject can be studied further if one will visit the site: www.icr.org. There one will find well-qualified scientists who are Christians and who can answer most questions about creation, earth conditions, scientific findings, etc., without resorting to theories and philosophy like most worldly scientists do. Debate seldom convinces one who is already convinced by his own special preferences.

- 1 Watchman

So any actual Evidence posted yet?

Hello I hope it's ok if I join this discussion. I don't believe in young earth creationism, but I do believe in God as Creator. I think ultimately, it does come down to faith in order to believe in God. There is nothing that can prove God exists. This is something you know in your heart. I think the focus should be on getting people saved.

I believe that God created, but I don't think we can prove it. I think God set it up this way on purpose so that people would need to take that leap of faith in order to believe and accept Jesus. It needs to be truly something we do of our own free will.

darren19 said:

hmm... what im baffled about is i keep hearing the old earth creationists say, "oh, we just want to focus on getting people saved" Well thats great, but at the same time we need to be brushed up on the latest scientific claims so if a non-christian comes up to us and they are an evolutionist, we can tell them how god created the earth and if they try to debate it we can know what to say. So really guys i really don't know what kind of evidence old earth creationists use to prove their theory, so please just tell me one of the pieces of evidence that you believe proves the old earth creation.

Click to expand...

1. The Earth is a couple billion years old.
2. Dinosaur bones are many millions of years old.
3. Many other fossils are many millions of years old.
4. Some human bones are hundreds of thousands of years old.
God made them on His schedule.

God lives outside time.

If you look at the fossil record you have periods where suddenly certain types of creatures are appearing , the one that comes to mind is when the sea was suddenly filled with trillobites etc. there does not seem to be a gradual change as they evolved.
This seems to fit the one day being one era type thing.

I also like some examples of how evolution does not fit, like anenome fish (nemo) could not evolve to live in an anenome as they would be killed off not develope immunity over time.

Here are a couple:

• the Universe is not round which it should be if everything came from a big bang. It is flattened which does not fit.
• scientists now believe that something existed before the big bang. There are right of course God did.
• if evolution works then man should be able to evolve to a longer lifespan which ain't happening.
• there is too much water on the Earth unless you top it up by imagining that it came from outer space by comets colliding with the Earth. That is a lot of comets.

Just curious, where's the evidence for a young earth?

Aside that Genesis 1&2 could be interpreted many different ways, it seems kind of silly to assume God is going to give us the full story of events and the methods involved in creating his Universe out of nothing in a couple short chapters.

I do not claim to know how it all started. I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, however my interpretation of Scripture is full of errors.

Modern day scientific theories seem to point to a Creator that follows right along with the Bible, however some people do not believe that their interpretation of Genesis is compatible with Modern day scientific theories.

John S said:

1. The Earth is a couple billion years old.
2. Dinosaur bones are many millions of years old.
3. Many other fossils are many millions of years old.
4. Some human bones are hundreds of thousands of years old.
God made them on His schedule.

Click to expand...

My personal thoughts are that there may be validity to the Gap theory that explains the accepted age of earth etc... however I think there are more than enough questions and inconsistencies related to carbon dating and if this technology can truly date things that are extremely old. The environmental conditions that existed prior to the flood could have changed how many things work.

darren19 said:

Sorry ive been gone for a while and im just getting back.

1. How do you know the earth is a couple of billion years old?
2. How do you know dinosour bones are millions of years old?
3. How do you know many other fossils are many millions of years old.
4. How do you know some human bones are hundreds of thousands of years old?

Answer those questions for me

-Darren

Click to expand...

Because I choose to believe that intelligent scientists happen to know what they are talking about - alot more than you or I know.
The age of civilization - where humans gathered together for specialized work - is 6,000 years old.

Well, we know that there exist stars that are billions of light years away, yet we can see them. I've yet to hear a plausible YEC explanation for this.

Who is your God? There is only one
Roann

I have seen where scientists have takes rats and put them in situations where there would need something or could do without and they have done this generation after generation and guess what they have yet to grow tails longer or to have tails not grown and so on. What we do see when environment changes instead of grown new parts or not grow apart not needed. We see the animals going extinct. If have you really read much a Darwin? Just think about it if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys. Why would some change to become so advanced and others stay the same. If you read it the whole thing just does not make since
Roann

timothyroann said:

I have seen where scientists have takes rats and put them in situations where there would need something or could do without and they have done this generation after generation and guess what they have yet to grow tails longer or to have tails not grown and so on. What we do see when environment changes instead of grown new parts or not grow apart not needed. We see the animals going extinct. If have you really read much a Darwin? Just think about it if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys. Why would some change to become so advanced and others stay the same. If you read it the whole thing just does not make since
Roann

Click to expand...

Such studies would show an incredible ignorance about the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory makes no claims that would be refuted by such a study. However, there have been many studies that have shown with simpler lifeforms (those that have very short generational periods), that populations often do appear to develop new characteristics in the presence of such a need. This happens, in part, because those individuals that do not have the genetic information for the new characteristic die off, leaving only those that do. For example, with the introduction penicillin to medicine, we also saw the evolution of penicillin resistance. This is because, with the introduction of penicillin, a very small minority of individuals within a given population with the trait of penicillin resistance had such a profound advantage that only they would be able to pass on their genetic material. As a result, in many bacterial populations, penicillin is now a trait that is exhibited in the majority of individuals, such that many infections cannot be treated with penicillin.

dies-l said:

Such studies would show an incredible ignorance about the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory makes no claims that would be refuted by such a study. However, there have been many studies that have shown with simpler lifeforms (those that have very short generational periods), that populations often do appear to develop new characteristics in the presence of such a need. This happens, in part, because those individuals that do not have the genetic information for the new characteristic die off, leaving only those that do. For example, with the introduction penicillin to medicine, we also saw the evolution of penicillin resistance. This is because, with the introduction of penicillin, a very small minority of individuals within a given population with the trait of penicillin resistance had such a profound advantage that only they would be able to pass on their genetic material. As a result, in many bacterial populations, penicillin is now a trait that is exhibited in the majority of individuals, such that many infections cannot be treated with penicillin.

Click to expand...

That does a good job describing small changes within a "species" through natural selection, but does not help in describing how a fish may evolve into something that can walk on land.

Either way, this thread seems off topic for this particular forum, and IMO, Evolution seems off topic when it comes to Christianity. I believe it would be more fruitful trying to get people to understand Evolution does nothing to contradict Jesus Christ or the Word of God, rather than try to prove Evolution is true to non-Evolution believing Christians.

sb81 said:

That does a good job describing small changes within a "species" through natural selection, but does not help in describing how a fish may evolve into something that can walk on land.

Click to expand...

Given sufficient time, it so-called "microevolution" will inevitably lead to so-called "macroevolution". If we can observe profound changes within a few dozen generations of selective breeding (such as with the introduction of a new threat), it is quite reasonable to conclude that the changes would be exponentially more profound over millions of generations. The question is whether or not life has existed on Earth long enough to allow such changes.

Either way, this thread seems off topic for this particular forum

Click to expand...

How so? We are non-denominational Christians discussing what non-denominational Christians believe vis a vis evolution and Creationism

and IMO, Evolution seems off topic when it comes to Christianity.

Click to expand...

You may disagree with the assertion that evolution does not contradict Scripture, but that does not make discussions about such a topic "off topic" to Christianity. I am a Christian who accepts the possibility of evolution.

I believe it would be more fruitful trying to get people to understand Evolution does nothing to contradict Jesus Christ or the Word of God, rather than try to prove Evolution is true to non-Evolution believing Christians.

Click to expand...

I agree. And, I am not in the business of convincing anyone to believe in evolution. However, understanding this thread is about scientific evidence supporting Young Earth Creationism. My point is that, quite frankly, there isn't any. It is a faith position, not a scientific one.

dies-l said:

Given sufficient time, it so-called "microevolution" will inevitably lead to so-called "macroevolution". If we can observe profound changes within a few dozen generations of selective breeding (such as with the introduction of a new threat), it is quite reasonable to conclude that the changes would be exponentially more profound over millions of generations. The question is whether or not life has existed on Earth long enough to allow such changes.

Click to expand...

Hmm, as many times as I hear this statement, it never makes any more sense to me. Throw in words and phrases like "inevitably" and "reasonable to conclude" then I have to start wondering how people define these words and phrases because it appears, at least to me, that they are not using them correctly.

How so? We are non-denominational Christians discussing what non-denominational Christians believe vis a vis evolution and Creationism

Click to expand...

You may disagree with the assertion that evolution does not contradict Scripture, but that does not make discussions about such a topic "off topic" to Christianity. I am a Christian who accepts the possibility of evolution.

Click to expand...

My point is, this is a very dividing issue amongst human beings and even in Christianity itself, when in reality, the only thing evolution may contradict is people's interpretations of Scripture.

Some Christians feel the possibility that evolution is true is a threat to their faith and to Christianity. Rather than being on the side of the threat and potentially causing your brothers and sisters to stumble, why not try to convince them that perhaps their interpretation of scripture could be wrong?

Please do not think I am accusing anyone who discusses evolution on this forum as intentionally trying to steer people from the faith. I am simply suggesting we be sensitive and do not cause others to stumble in the faith.

I use to be there, and believing in some of the popular YEC interpretations of Scripture can be devastating when trying to process these topics, especially when even your own Christian brothers and sisters are touting them as truth.

I agree. And, I am not in the business of convincing anyone to believe in evolution. However, understanding this thread is about scientific evidence supporting Young Earth Creationism. My point is that, quite frankly, there isn't any. It is a faith position, not a scientific one.

Click to expand...

I agree with this; however evolution does not have much more going for it.

May God richly bless you my Brother!