Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But wouldn't "in the beginning" be when day 1 starts then?
Reads like 1 day to me.
The first "day" isn't until verses 3-5, and is an Earth day. Previous to that day, in the beginning, God created the Universe and the Earth, and this suggests the other planets of course, this solar system. The vision though in the days described starting at verse 3 (or 2) is from the point of view of being on the surface of the Earth.

That's how the sun can begin to light a day, but not be visible yet -- the young Earth was cloudy 24/7/365
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,215
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The YEC view is that basically the earth is 6-10000 years old. Answers in Genesis list 10 strong evidences for this here.

These are basically the following

#1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor
#2 Bent Rock Layers
#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils
#4 Faint Sun Paradox
#5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field
#6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks
#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds
#8 Short-Lived Comets
#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea
#10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

How would those of you who believe in an Old Earth counter these scientific arguments?

EDIT:

I thought my OP was clearly focused on the scientific arguments I listed. I will add the text of this post to my OP to clarify that. I have assumed since this is the Christians only section of the forums that everybody here is happy with the view God did it. But yes there is a variance on how he did it. I am happy to hear the opinions of Christians only as to whether the various scientific evidences I listed are credible or not with a focus on the age of the earth.

If the arguments are valid then a YEC position has some scientific credibility, if not then an Old Earth or TE position or day age theory may be better. But I would prefer to discuss the biblical evidences and positions elsewhere. This is focused on the scientific evidences listed. I hope the list is not too long but it gives people the opportunity to pick and mix the ones they are interested in.

#2, bent rock layers.

This is over simplified. Clean fractures wouldn't form if rock were unsolidified. Yet we have clean fractures of rock. Therefore, rocks had solidified prior to fracturing.
 
Upvote 0

thesunisout

growing in grace
Supporter
Mar 24, 2011
4,761
1,399
He lifts me up
✟159,601.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The YEC view is that basically the earth is 6-10000 years old. Answers in Genesis list 10 strong evidences for this here.

These are basically the following

#1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor
#2 Bent Rock Layers
#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils
#4 Faint Sun Paradox
#5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field
#6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks
#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds
#8 Short-Lived Comets
#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea
#10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

How would those of you who believe in an Old Earth counter these scientific arguments?

EDIT:

I thought my OP was clearly focused on the scientific arguments I listed. I will add the text of this post to my OP to clarify that. I have assumed since this is the Christians only section of the forums that everybody here is happy with the view God did it. But yes there is a variance on how he did it. I am happy to hear the opinions of Christians only as to whether the various scientific evidences I listed are credible or not with a focus on the age of the earth.

If the arguments are valid then a YEC position has some scientific credibility, if not then an Old Earth or TE position or day age theory may be better. But I would prefer to discuss the biblical evidences and positions elsewhere. This is focused on the scientific evidences listed. I hope the list is not too long but it gives people the opportunity to pick and mix the ones they are interested in.

This is such a contentious topic, unfortunately. The vast majority of scientists despise Creationism, and their vitriol has crept into the church. In the end, I don't think the scientific arguments are what will ultimately persuade people. It has to be a conviction of the Holy Spirit to let someone know that they can trust the word of God, as it is written. That is what the Spirit did for me, as a former believer in evolution and long ages of the Earth.

There are good reasons to believe that the Earth is young, rational reasons, which inform our faith. Ultimately though it is a faith in the account of our Creator who was there in the beginning, and that it happened exactly like He said it did. Yes, there are different ways to twist the text to make it say what you want it to say, just like the rest of the scripture. There isn't a doctrine out there that there isn't an army of skeptics attempting to convince those who believe it that they can't trust what is written.

Outside of the church there will always be skeptics who doubt Gods word and attempt to destroy the faith of those who believe. That will be true until the Day of Judgment:

2 Peter 3:3-7

knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men

It is written here that wicked men in the last days would deny the Creation and the flood, which is the very thing they are doing. I praise God that even the unbelief of men confirms His word to be true!
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
5) Fluctuations in the magnetic field only prove a 6,000 year earth if they are constant. They are not. Also, Barnes' work doesn't hold up to evidence, and his measurements are of dipole strength, not field strength Dipole strength can vary while field strength doesn't, so his model is unpredictive and flawed.

The only direct measurements we have were mentioned in the article and indicate an exponential rate of decline:

Several measurements confirm this decay. Since measuring began in 1845, the total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field has been decaying at a rate of 5% per century. Archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000. Recent records of the International Geomagnetic Reference Field, the most accurate ever taken, show a net energy loss of 1.4% in just three decades (1970–2000). This means that the field’s energy has halved every 1,465 years or so.

The secular world seems to agree with this measurement of decline and does not really explain it or have any solid predictions about what will happen as a result of it.

At present, the overall geomagnetic field is becoming weaker; the present strong deterioration corresponds to a 10–15% decline over the last 150 years and has accelerated in the past several years; geomagnetic intensity has declined almost continuously from a maximum 35% above the modern value achieved approximately 2,000 years ago. The rate of decrease and the current strength are within the normal range of variation, as shown by the record of past magnetic fields recorded in rocks.
The nature of Earth's magnetic field is one of heteroscedastic fluctuation. An instantaneous measurement of it, or several measurements of it across the span of decades or centuries, are not sufficient to extrapolate an overall trend in the field strength. It has gone up and down in the past for unknown reasons. Also, noting the local intensity of the dipole field (or its fluctuation) is insufficient to characterize Earth's magnetic field as a whole, as it is not strictly a dipole field. The dipole component of Earth's field can diminish even while the total magnetic field remains the same or increases.

Creationists do not dispute the sudden shifts of poles which have a signature in the rocks but they see those shifts in terms of a catastrophist as opposed to gradualist approach.

But based on the only evidence we have (which shows a decline which would not be sustainable over the long run for the future of life on earth) and based on the uncertainty of the explanatory model in terms of making actual predictions there is no refutation here.
 
Upvote 0

gideon123

Humble Servant of God
Dec 25, 2011
1,185
583
USA
✟59,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Earth is currently estimated to be about 4 billion years old. Of course, scientists will revise this estimate, as more data are gathered. Science is in a constant state of discussion and debate - which is healthy. Many sciences support this viewpoint about the age of the Earth .. physics, biology, geology, astronomy. It is a consensus view .. meaning that data are compared and shared amongst all the sciences.

Not only that ... We know that the Earth contains elements from hydrogen (atomic number 1) to uranium (atomic number 92). It is IMPOSSIBLE for the heavy elements to have been synthesized by our present Sun. Therefore, the heavy elements must have come from a dust cloud, after the explosion of a supernova ... somewhere else in our Galaxy. Therefore, in some ways you could say that the Earth is much, much older than 4 billion years. Interesting to think about!!

There is no credible evidence supporting the age of the Earth as 10,000 years. This view is in contradiction with all the major sciences today.

There is also no reason for Christians to be pushing such a viewpoint. WHY do it? It makes Christianity look like we are stuck in the dark ages. It is archaic, and that is an understatement.

It is entirely possible to interpret the first verses in Genesis as a metaphorical description given by God. And what is wrong with that? If God sometimes speaks to us with beautiful poetry and metaphors, does that make His word any less important? I don't think so.

Gideon123
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is such a contentious topic, unfortunately. The vast majority of scientists despise Creationism, and their vitriol has crept into the church. In the end, I don't think the scientific arguments are what will ultimately persuade people. It has to be a conviction of the Holy Spirit to let someone know that they can trust the word of God, as it is written. That is what the Spirit did for me, as a former believer in evolution and long ages of the Earth.

There are good reasons to believe that the Earth is young, rational reasons, which inform our faith. Ultimately though it is a faith in the account of our Creator who was there in the beginning, and that it happened exactly like He said it did. Yes, there are different ways to twist the text to make it say what you want it to say, just like the rest of the scripture. There isn't a doctrine out there that there isn't an army of skeptics attempting to convince those who believe it that they can't trust what is written.

Outside of the church there will always be skeptics who doubt Gods word and attempt to destroy the faith of those who believe. That will be true until the Day of Judgment:

2 Peter 3:3-7

knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men

It is written here that wicked men in the last days would deny the Creation and the flood, which is the very thing they are doing. I praise God that even the unbelief of men confirms His word to be true!

As believers, we must do as Christ said is necessary to make it, to continue --

21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. ...
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

See? Anything and everything, from A to Z that isn't hearing his words in the 4 gospels and putting those commands/instructions into practice isn't a sound foundation for our faith -- our required faith -- but only sand leading to eventual destruction some day in a storm that will come.

Any correct or mistaken understandings of Genesis chapter 1 don't even matter, because this isn't the bedrock, the firm foundation, for lasting faith.

What allows us to make it is hearing and doing his words, putting his words into actual practice by doing them, in our lives.

If we do, then our faith will endure, and so we will make it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Press On
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The only direct measurements we have were mentioned in the article and indicate an exponential rate of decline:

Several measurements confirm this decay. Since measuring began in 1845, the total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field has been decaying at a rate of 5% per century. Archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000. Recent records of the International Geomagnetic Reference Field, the most accurate ever taken, show a net energy loss of 1.4% in just three decades (1970–2000). This means that the field’s energy has halved every 1,465 years or so.

The secular world seems to agree with this measurement of decline and does not really explain it or have any solid predictions about what will happen as a result of it.

At present, the overall geomagnetic field is becoming weaker; the present strong deterioration corresponds to a 10–15% decline over the last 150 years and has accelerated in the past several years; geomagnetic intensity has declined almost continuously from a maximum 35% above the modern value achieved approximately 2,000 years ago. The rate of decrease and the current strength are within the normal range of variation, as shown by the record of past magnetic fields recorded in rocks.
The nature of Earth's magnetic field is one of heteroscedastic fluctuation. An instantaneous measurement of it, or several measurements of it across the span of decades or centuries, are not sufficient to extrapolate an overall trend in the field strength. It has gone up and down in the past for unknown reasons. Also, noting the local intensity of the dipole field (or its fluctuation) is insufficient to characterize Earth's magnetic field as a whole, as it is not strictly a dipole field. The dipole component of Earth's field can diminish even while the total magnetic field remains the same or increases.

Creationists do not dispute the sudden shifts of poles which have a signature in the rocks but they see those shifts in terms of a catastrophist as opposed to gradualist approach.

But based on the only evidence we have (which shows a decline which would not be sustainable over the long run for the future of life on earth) and based on the uncertainty of the explanatory model in terms of making actual predictions there is no refutation here.

I've read about that a few years ago, how the periodic repositioning of the Earth's magnetic poles is proceeded first by weakening field strength.

It's the range of when it could happen, that is, not often, but on the order of hundreds of thousands of years apart ( "Earth has settled in the last 20 million years into a pattern of a pole reversal about every 200,000 to 300,000 years, although it has been more than twice that long since the last reversal." Pole Reversal Happens All The (Geologic) Time )

First the field weakens and then starts to have multiple weaker poles, etc.

Here's a representative article:
Magnetic pole reversal ahead? | EarthSky.org
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
#4 Faint Sun Paradox

I thought this one would be interesting for me to look at, since I love astrophysics, and it would be fun to learn more on, instead of work, also with the help of already relying on stuff I learned long ago like how fusion works, that planetary orbits migrate and evolve, etc. So, I should know what to check on! :) I will now look over the article and get back to you.....
 
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The first "day" isn't until verses 3-5, and is an Earth day.
Why?
The beginning is a starting point.
It's dark, and (going on from where God's Spirit hovers over the deep in darkness) God said, let there be light.
You think there was darkness for a long, long period of time?
Previous to that day, in the beginning, God created the Universe and the Earth, and this suggests the other planets of course, this solar system.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.
16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.
17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.


And there is i.m.h.o. no time before the first day, otherwise it wouldn't be the first day.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why?
The beginning is a starting point.
It's dark, and (going on from where God's Spirit hovers over the deep in darkness) God said, let there be light.
You think there was darkness for a long, long period of time?
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.
16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.
17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.


And there is i.m.h.o. no time before the first day, otherwise it wouldn't be the first day.

Did you read through post #21? I need to know so that I can avoid repeating myself from before.

I am though thinking that the verses are in sequence -- verse 1 happens before verse 2 in time. Verse 1 and then 2 happen before verse 3 in time.

A sequence, in order, without jumping back and forth. Verse 3 does not happen during verse 1. See?

Are you using that assumption or a different assumption?
 
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

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Did you read through post #21? I need to know so that I can avoid repeating myself from before.
Of course i read it.
I think it's highly speculative and i see little reason (but maybe i'm blind) to follow your line of thought.
I am though thinking that the verses are in sequence -- verse 1 happens before verse 2 in time. Verse 1 and then 2 happen before verse 3 in time.
Of course they are in sequence.
Genesis 1 is a 6 day sequence.
I read the clock starts, God creates the heavens and the earth, earth being without form and void, God hovering over the face of the deep, and it's dark, so He creates light.
And it had been evening (dark / night) and it had been morning (light / day), and that was the first day.
 
Upvote 0

DarkSoul999

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2017
437
161
38
New Britain
✟37,183.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I'm basically skeptical because I've seen scientists re-calibrate their dating methods.
So it's not like it's perfect.
Carbon Dating Gets a Reset
.
Also stating a 5000+ year half life, when there's no actual observable evidence of that half life involves some "faith" on behalf of those who trust in the hypothesis.
.
So I reserve judgment until some definitive evidence appears.

It is impossible to observe electrons with the naked eye. Are you saying they don't exist?

Yes there is a small element of faith in the scientific method but constant scathing peer review and the reproducible nature of the experiments makes that faith threshold very low indeed.

You have absolutely no comprehension of radioactive decay. That is one of the most easily verifiable processes in all of physics. Hold a piece of uranium in your hand and tell me how you feel the next day. Then again let's make it easier then that! Tell me what happens if Radon levels are too high in your basement? That is a different type of radioactive decay but the basic nuclear process is similar to that of Carbon 14 beta minus decay.

I really wonder about Christians sometimes. Is your faith so weak that you are willing to deliberately LIE?! That is outrageous!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DarkSoul999

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2017
437
161
38
New Britain
✟37,183.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Or you may have misunderstood the arguments proposed or be bringing ideological blinkers of your own to the conversation. Afterall none of us are righteous not even one. But my desire in posting the OP was to test the credibility of these arguments. Thanks for focusing on a specific argument and giving me something to think about.

uhhh This has nothing to do with me. A sin is a sin. I didn't write the rules. Talk to the boss upstairs.

Right I actually understand that. The view is that after about 60000 years the decay of carbon14 to nitrogen 14 will be complete to the extent that any trace elements are pretty worthless for dating and an alternative dating scheme needs to be found.

Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old, as samples older than that have insufficient 14
C to be measurable. Older dates have been obtained by using special sample preparation techniques, large samples, and very long measurement times. These techniques can allow measurement of dates up to 60,000 and in some cases up to 75,000 years before the present


But if the amount of the trace element is still significant and readable after 60000 years then the probability is that it cannot be more than 60000 years old.

There are other types of physical dating used by paleontologist including potassium-argon dating, argon-argon dating, fission track, direct chemical analysis, stratigraphy, biostratigraphy, and paleomagnetic stratigraphy. Non-exponential carbon 14 dating is primarily used for very recent events but it is NOT the be all and end all.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

The faint sun 'paradox' is the notion that since the sun has lower energy output 2 billion years ago, how could life thrive back then, with less warmth, and then if nothing else was different, the water all frozen....

Of course, something else could also have been different, and that's important to consider, obviously, and hopefully with real evidence if possible.

(Interesting historical note: the Faint Sun paradox first "was raised by astronomers Carl Sagan and George Mullen in 1972.")

Notes from the wiki on the paradox Faint young Sun paradox - Wikipedia
"Early in Earth's history, the Sun's output would have been only 70 percent as intense as it is during the modern epoch. In the environmental conditions [thought in the 70s to have been] existing at that [early Earth] time, this solar output would have been insufficient to maintain a liquid ocean. Astronomers Carl Sagan and George Mullen pointed out in 1972 that this is contrary to the geological and paleontological evidence."

My own first thought is that it's common in astrophysics to study and simulate migrating orbits. Of course if the Earth was nearer to the sun at the same time the sun was cooler, that could balance out. The wiki has zero about that, so I'll look elsewhere to see if we have any evidence of that. We do for instance have interesting evidence that the moon was closer to Earth in the past. That increases tides and tidal heating.

How close was the moon? At one time even as close as 1/18 to 1/12 as far as now. Since gravity is proportional to the square of distance, we must square and invert to get the relative force compared to now -- tidal energy being dissipated from the moon into Earth, reducing Earth's rotation some, I calculate to be on the order of 150 times or more stronger. So later, after life putatively get's started, we still could have a huge number, like perhaps tides 50 to 100 times stronger than today, for instance.... Yikes! This was an interesting guesstimate! That's some serious energy and tides! Even if it were merely 30 times stronger, it's very serious tidal heating energy we are talking about.

The wiki has several interesting theories, including tidal heating and the effects of radioactive elements earlier in time (when they were more hot than now) and the higher heat of decaying Uranium leading to different surface outgassing and albedo was an interesting idea.

On next to checking elsewhere whether we have any evidence of migration of Earth's orbit.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mindlight
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,810
7,418
PA
✟317,146.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The YEC view is that basically the earth is 6-10000 years old. Answers in Genesis list 10 strong evidences for this here.

These are basically the following

#1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor
Problem 1: the current oceans are only (at the oldest) about 175-180 million years old, not billions of years old. That's still more than the 12 million years claimed by by Snelling, but there's no source or calculation provided for that claim.

Problem 2: new seafloor is continuously created at mid-ocean ridges and terrestrial sediment rarely makes it much past the continental slope, so using the average sediment thickness for the entire seafloor is misleading. What matters is thickness on the continental shelf and continental slope.

Problem 3: Snelling discusses the use of a "rescue device" by old-earth advocates of sediment accumulation being slower in the past, but just before that, he uses one of his own by handwaving away his own claim of 12 million years of accumulation with a claim of faster accumulation in the past in order to shoehorn it into a 6000 year old earth.

Folding occurs at depth, where rocks are subjected to high temperatures and pressures over long periods of time. Under these conditions, it is indeed possible to bend rocks without breaking them. That's not always the case though - we also see brittle deformation in the form of faults, where rocks are bent while too cold or are bent too rapidly and break instead. Soft-sediment deformation - what Snelling claims causes all folding - has specific characteristics that are not seen in most folded rocks. It's also important to note that most folds do exhibit some degree of fracturing and brittle deformation, even if only at the microscopic level.

This has been explained since Snelling's article.

A 25% change in luminosity only results in a 7% change in temperature as explained by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, so Faulkner's claim of a 31 degree temperature change is flat out wrong. A 7% change would put the equator at about the same average temperature as the modern arctic. Harsh, but survivable, especially for simple single-celled organisms.

We also have plenty of evidence for several periods of extensive glaciation since then that life has managed to survive, so the sensitivity of life to temperature differences is not really an issue.

The earth's magnetic field switches direction relatively frequently on a geologic timescale. We can observe these changes by measuring the orientation of magnetic minerals within rocks, with a very complete record going back to the opening of the modern ocean basins around 180 million years ago. The last reversal was about 780,000 years ago, so we're sort of due for one. That is likely what we are observing with the current decay of the magnetic field.

I'd suggest reading this article (written after the article that Snelling claims "addresses all issues") for a good discussion of the issues with this claim. In short:

1. They misidentified the rocks they were studying (which will throw off calculations)

2. They crushed their biotite samples, which can lead to helium loss, and the samples were described as "impure". Biotite diffusion rates (and therefore helium concentrations) are an important part of the models that were used in the study.

3. Measurements from the original Gentry paper were changed with no documentation or explanation other than that they had been "typographical errors."

4. Diffusion modelling requires a precise measurement of the zircon radius, but Humphreys just assumes that it is 30 microns for all samples. No measurements are provided. Similar issues are present with some of his other numbers as well.

Samples can be contaminated through several sources. First, 14C can be a product of decay chains of longer-lived radioactive elements. Second, sulfur bacteria commonly live in coal and will contain atmospheric carbon. Third, modern carbonates and weathering products will contain atmospheric carbon.

This claim also conveniently ignores the fact that carbon dating is pretty solidly corroborated by non-radiometric dating methods such as lake varves, ice cores, and tree rings. A couple of examples of bad data do not invalidate millions of examples of good data.

If there was no source for new comets, we would expect all comets to be the same age. They're not. Not being able to directly observe the Oort Cloud does not preclude its existence as new comets (which exist) have to come from somewhere. Interestingly, creationists also used to make the same arguments about the Kuiper Belt, but that has since been observed and Faulkner seems to have accepted that it can be a source for short-period comets.

A detailed analysis of sodium in the oceans shows that the input and removal rates are virtually identical, within margin of error. Morton's letter does not (as Snelling claims) ignore the exchange of sodium from seafloor basalts because that is already included in the cited list of input methods.

I'll admit that I don't have a good explanation for this one. However, I'm not a biologist. I do know that bacteria are amazingly hardy and can survive in some pretty extreme conditions. I'm not ruling out the possibility of it being a random modern bacterium either. No need to jump immediately to the conclusion that the Earth is young though as that would ignore a whole host of evidence to the contrary.
 
Last edited:
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

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Of course i read it.
I think it's highly speculative and i see little reason (but maybe i'm blind) to follow your line of thought.
Of course they are in sequence.
Genesis 1 is a 6 day sequence.
I read the clock starts, God creates the heavens and the earth, earth being without form and void, God hovering over the face of the deep, and it's dark, so He creates light.
And it had been evening (dark / night) and it had been morning (light / day), and that was the first day.

The first "day" really was a day I think, with a morning and evening. A real day. Not a 1000 hour day or whatever. Just my own viewpoint (not gospel) So, since it was a real day, it did not start until after light, which I feel sure is from the sun because all six of the days have a morning and evening, and all are normal days. This is my view point. So you can see how it follows from that then that verse 1 would be before the first day, not part of the first day. I can't imagine any reason to think verse 1 would be during verse 3 or simultaneous to it. That seems artificial to impose onto it. It seems more reasonable to me God created the Universe and the Earth, our solar system, and then, later, we have verse 3, and the first of the 6 days is observed in the vision. This is merely my view, however well or not informed. It's not gospel anymore than a view which is different would be. It does fit the text perfectly though.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Like most of us I suppose, I'm no scientist.

You don't have to be.

But I can read. What the plain words of the scriptures seem to tell us is that the earth is young and that man has been on that earth for around 6,000 years.

No it doesn't, it says God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. Thats all it says, it doesn't say when the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters, just that he was. The reference to time are the genealogies come later and they are an unbroken genealogy leading all the way to the birth of the Messiah.

So long as there are credible arguments for a young earth and arguments which seem to refute the absolute necessity of believing in an old earth and millions of years for the existence of mankind - I will go with the basic reading of the scriptures.

A straight forward reading of the Genesis account renders the age of the universe and the earth irrelevant.

I believe that to me, a non scientist, these and other arguments for a young earth seem compelling and I believe there are ways of explaining what the world tells us about an old world, evolution, and all the rest.

Therefore, being a simple, Bible believing, non scientist man of faith, I believe in a young earth, Adam and Eve, and a literal 6,000 years for the age of mankind.

I'm well into my 70's now and I don't have a great many years until I can ask the Lord directly about these things. I plan to do exactly that - after looking around Heaven a bit and likely asking other questions before getting to this one. :)

Science has nothing to do with this, the doctrine of creation is inextricably linked to God creating life, not the planet and certainly not the universe.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The only thing that matters in all of this is the belief God created it! ;)

Amen.

Those who don't know Christ, and wonder about the Bible need to hear it's ok to think the Earth is whatever age -- they are not required to agree to any particular guesses on any side about Genesis chapter 1.

They need to hear the Good News and Christ's words. God is able. No doubt He did things none of us have guessed.
 
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

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
This is such a contentious topic, unfortunately. The vast majority of scientists despise Creationism, and their vitriol has crept into the church. . . .

The scientists are exposed to the most vocal and vitriolic opposition to science. It is only natural for some of them to reply in kind. We would all do well to avoid vitriol.
 
Upvote 0