Is Genesis history?

[Job 33:6]

Extrapolate backwards the 1.5 inches per year and the moon’s orbit would be on the surface of the earth.

Yup, and if I rewind time, I'd end up back in my mother's womb, but that's not an argument for me only being one day old.

 

[chad kincham]

Like I said, no explanation, just conspiracy theories.



The moon has been drifting away from Earth for 4.5 billion years. A stunning animation shows how far it has gone.

"The moon is moving away from Earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year."

How Far Away Is the Moon? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids

"The Moon is an average of 238,855 miles away from Earth"

238,855 miles x 63,360 inches/1 mile = 15.13 billion inches.

15.13billion inches /1.5 inches per year = 10 billion years.

There are no mathematical issues here. If you assumed 1 billion year answer to your math, then you're doing something wrong. Given a constant rate of recession, there would be 10 billion years before the moon were to touch earth if we were to rewind time, not 1 billion.

Your simplistic calculations are apparently bogus, since peer reviewed articles say the moon’s recession rate gives an age of 1.5 billion years, whereas the accepted age is 4.5 billion.

To whit:

Abstract
Dissipation of tidal energy causes the Moon to recede from the Earth. The currently measured rate of recession implies that the age of the Lunar orbit is 1500 My old, but the Moon is known to be 4500 My old. Consequently, it has been proposed that tidal energy dissipation was weaker in the Earth's past, but explicit numerical calculations are missing for such long time intervals. Here, for the first time, numerical tidal model simulations linked to climate model output are conducted for a range of paleogeographic configurations over the last 252 My. We find that the present is a poor guide to the past in terms of tidal dissipation: the total dissipation rates for most of the past 252 My were far below present levels. This allows us to quantify the reduced tidal dissipation rates over the most resent fraction of lunar history, and the lower dissipation allows refinement of orbitally-derived age models by inserting a complete additional precession cycle.

1. Introduction
Tidally induced energy dissipation in the earth and ocean gradually slows the Earth's rotation rate, changes Earth and lunar orbital parameters, and increases the Earth–Moon separation (Darwin, 1899, Munk, 1968). A long-standing conundrum exists in the evolution of the Earth–Moon system relating to the present recession rate of the moon and its age: if present day observed dissipation rates are representative of the past, the moon must be younger than 1500 Ma (Hansen, 1982, Sonett, 1996). This does not fit the age model of the solar system, putting the age of the moon around 4500 Ma (Hansen, 1982, Sonett, 1996, Walker and Zahnle, 1986, Canup and Asphaug, 2001, Waltham, 2004), and the possibility that the tidal dissipation rates have changed significantly over long time periods has been proposed (Hansen, 1982, Ooe, 1989, Poliakov, 2005, Green and Huber, 2013, Williams et al., 2014).

Source: Explicitly modelled deep-time tidal dissipation and its implication for Lunar history - ScienceDirect

 

[Job 33:6]

Your simplistic calculations are apparently bogus, since peer reviewed articles say the moon’s recession rate gives an age of 1.5 billion years, whereas the accepted age is 4.5 billion.

To whit:

Abstract
Dissipation of tidal energy causes the Moon to recede from the Earth. The currently measured rate of recession implies that the age of the Lunar orbit is 1500 My old, but the Moon is known to be 4500 My old. Consequently, it has been proposed that tidal energy dissipation was weaker in the Earth's past, but explicit numerical calculations are missing for such long time intervals. Here, for the first time, numerical tidal model simulations linked to climate model output are conducted for a range of paleogeographic configurations over the last 252 My. We find that the present is a poor guide to the past in terms of tidal dissipation: the total dissipation rates for most of the past 252 My were far below present levels. This allows us to quantify the reduced tidal dissipation rates over the most resent fraction of lunar history, and the lower dissipation allows refinement of orbitally-derived age models by inserting a complete additional precession cycle.

1. Introduction
Tidally induced energy dissipation in the earth and ocean gradually slows the Earth's rotation rate, changes Earth and lunar orbital parameters, and increases the Earth–Moon separation (Darwin, 1899, Munk, 1968). A long-standing conundrum exists in the evolution of the Earth–Moon system relating to the present recession rate of the moon and its age: if present day observed dissipation rates are representative of the past, the moon must be younger than 1500 Ma (Hansen, 1982, Sonett, 1996). This does not fit the age model of the solar system, putting the age of the moon around 4500 Ma (Hansen, 1982, Sonett, 1996, Walker and Zahnle, 1986, Canup and Asphaug, 2001, Waltham, 2004), and the possibility that the tidal dissipation rates have changed significantly over long time periods has been proposed (Hansen, 1982, Ooe, 1989, Poliakov, 2005, Green and Huber, 2013, Williams et al., 2014).

Source: Explicitly modelled deep-time tidal dissipation and its implication for Lunar history - ScienceDirect

The article more specifically declares the problem seeking to be resolved:
"if present day observed dissipation rates are representative of the past, the moon must be younger than 1500 Ma (Hansen, 1982, Sonett, 1996)."

So really this article comes down to a discussion of dissipation rates, and is not actually focused on recession.

The article further describes a solution for the problem, and ultimately concludes:
"Results from an established numerical tidal model suggest that the tidal dissipation during the Cenozoic and Late Cretaceous were weaker than at present, with the exception of the glacial states over the last 2 Ma. It is very likely that the Earth–Moon system is unusually dissipative at present. Consequently, the Moon's recession rate was slower in the deep past than predicted using PD dissipation rates, supporting the old-age Earth–Moon model."

In other words, dissipation was weaker in the past and therefore recession was slower, and thus the old-age earth-moon model accurately reflects reality.

Aka the moon is 4.5 billion years old old, as per this article.

Do you disagree with your own source?

 

[coffee4u]

Animals did die before the fall and populated the earth.

And your scriptural back up that statement?

As well as early man that was spiritually transformed to life.
Adam was transformed into a living soul by God who choose
to modify man into His own spiritual image. It was a big plan.

When God said "Let us make man into our image"
The root word is actually "Re-make".

Nothing in the Hebrew says to re-make.

 

[SkyWriting]

And your scriptural back up that statement?

Genesis 2:15
Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

Genesis 3:23
therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.

Genesis 4:2
Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Genesis 3:17-19
Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;
Cursed is the ground because of you;
In toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
“Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;
By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”

Source: 20 Bible verses about Tilling The Soil



Dirt for a fully functioning garden was not in plastic bags.
Dirt is mostly dead organic materials. Vegetation and dead animals.

Spoiler

Deliver to the Garden East of Eden.

 

[coffee4u]

Genesis 2:15
Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

Genesis 3:23
therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.

Genesis 4:2
Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Genesis 3:17-19
Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;
Cursed is the ground because of you;
In toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
“Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;
By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”

Source: 20 Bible verses about Tilling The Soil

Lots of verses but none say "Animals died before the fall and populated the earth."
You need a verse saying that ^ if this is what you claim scripture says.
You can't build a doctrine out of silence.

Dirt for a fully functioning garden was not in plastic bags.
Dirt is mostly dead organic materials. Vegetation and dead animals.

God created everything at an adult level. Trees were fully grown not seedlings, Adam and Eve were adults, animals were ready to procreate.
The ground would have been rich in whatever way God created it to be, the same way the new earth will be and God will not be replenishing the soil there with the dead bodies of animals since death will be done away with.

Dirt is made up of sand, silt, and clay. Much of the organic matter to go from dirt to soil is from plants, insects and bacteria. Plants, insects and bacteria do not 'die' in the Biblical sense. Biblical death- nephesh, was and only is for creatures with a soul, these things do not have a soul so their passing does not count as 'death'.
Scripture doesn't say how the soil was made or enriched so we can't say exactly how God created it to be. For all we know the soil richness could have been from something else that we don't even have a single clue about. But to say it came from dead animals when not a single scripture says so is simply making things up.

 

[Vap841]

It's worth mentioning that there is no perfect human. To be a perfect human is to be human, have human failings, and to die. And Jesus was aging.

What about Chuck Norris?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Exodus 20:11

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.


6 days.


God himself is outside of time, but he created time for us so we could understand days, weeks, months and years.

In which of the Harry Potter novels does it say this?

Scripture repeats each day with evening and morning and counts days and then repeats 6 days in Exodus because this is what God wants us to know, that from our perspective 6 days passed. It isn't yet for us to know what time bending things happened as God created. Instead we have his word which flies against what man would rather believe in-evolution and billions of years. Is his word enough to simply trust or do we look to science, our senses(Like Peter when he walked on water) or quibble over exact word meanings and try and reinterpret it.

We have today well over 3,000,000 men and women around the world who have earned at least one doctorate who believe in the theory of evolution and that the earth is 4.54 billion years old, and about 47 men and women around the world who have earned at least one doctorate who believe in young earth creationism and a literal interpretation of the Pentateuch. Are those 3,000,000 men and women stupid, or foolish, or retarded—or are they correct?

We also have today hundreds of professors of Hebrew, professors of Semitic languages, and professors of Biblical languages around the world who believe that the Pentateuch does not teach young earth creationism, and none who believe that it does? Are those hundreds of professors stupid, or foolish, or retarded—or are they correct? Have any young earth creationists carefully and prayerfully studied the volumes of evidence that these professors have published to find out for themselves whether they are correct—or have they automatically shut their minds to what other people believe simply because they do not like what they believe?

Moreover, is the Bible not important enough to justify carefully and prayerfully studying every word in it, and to ardently defend accurate translations of every word?

And why should anyone today believe in the old and now thoroughly debunked Roman Catholic tradition that God desires that we interpret all of the Pentateuch as an accurate, literal account of Historical events? Most certainly, the Bible does not tell us that we should, and evidence from the Bible itself tells us that we should not.

[QUOTE="coffee4u, post: 76246094, member: 415399God wanted us to know he took 6 days. The only reason not to believe scripture as plainly written is because of the influence of man. [/QUOTE]

The Bible does not say that God wanted us to know that He took 6 days to complete His acts of creation. Furthermore, there are very many reasons from the Bible itself to not believe scripture as plainly written—the number one reason, of course, is that the Bible was not plainly written! To one man, his interpretation may seem to be perfectly plain, but to another man, that interpretation may seem to be—and indeed may actually be—absurd! Case in point:

The very large majority of Christians who lack a college education interpret Romans 7:14-25 to be autobiographical of Paul at the time that he wrote the epistle. For the first three centuries of the Church, the native Greek speakers, with only one known exception, interpreted, with some variations, Romans 7:14-25 to be a the experience of an unregenerate Jew. The Latin speaking Christians, however, with some exceptions, interpreted Romans 7:14-25 to be the experience of a Christian. The Reformers, with very few exceptions, also interpreted Romans 7:14-25 to be the experience of a Christian. Subsequent to that period in the history of the Church, we find among the educated class the interpretations of Romans 7:14-25 to be fluctuating. Today, we find among well-educated people the interpretations of Romans 7:14-25 to be fluctuating, but 30-40 years ago, scholars of Romans were largely in agreement that in Romans 7:14-25 Paul is using the rhetorical device known as prosopopoeia or speech-in-character. This literary device was commonly used in Paul’s day, and is used today among well-educated English-speaking people. Other English-speaking people do not recognize it when they see it, and consequently, they misunderstand what they are reading but do not realize it.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Professor Gary E. Parker, ex evolutionist, exposed the radiometric dating game, and convergence.


Due to fractionation in magma chambers, where lead in the magma settles down into lower levels, when magma is released and becomes lava, the lava that becomes rock shows a big difference in age between the start of the flow, and the end of the flow.


A given magma flow is all the same lava, and all of it is the same age, but the radiometric dating age will vary widely between the beginning of the flow and the end of it.


They then start with the date they want it to have, then keep testing samples until they get one that shows the age they want, or an age they are willing to accept, and throw out the other dates.


Convergence occurs because they do the same thing with all the various dating methods, and only use the dates they want, throw out the rest, then use that as proof that radiometric dating is accurate.


And they also can take a sample of rock from the area of rock they found that tests to the date they will accept, and take that to different labs to “”confirm” the accuracy of radiometric dating


Here’s a university.edu website showing the many problems with radiometric dating, in great detail:


More Bad News for Radiometric Dating

David Plaisted is the author of the articles posted at the website linked to above. He is a computer scientist who has no formal education in any of the natural sciences, and he has no formal education in any field of Biblical studies. Being inexcusably ignorant of both the Bible and the natural sciences, he became seduced by young earth creationism and is making a fool of himself by writing about things concerning which he has no factual knowledge. Moreover, the correct age of the earth cannot be measured by studying the center of the earth, but can be and has been accurately measured as described in detail in an excellent article written from a conservative evangelical perspective:

Radiometric Dating

 

[SkyWriting]

What about Chuck Norris?

He tends to be anxious. On edge.

 

[SkyWriting]

Lots of verses but none say "Animals died before the fall and populated the earth."
You need a verse saying that ^ if this is what you claim scripture says.
You can't build a doctrine out of silence.



-God created everything at an adult level.
-Trees were fully grown not seedlings,
-Adam and Eve were adults, animals were ready to procreate.
-God will not be replenishing the soil there with the dead bodies of animals since death will be done away with.

Not a single scripture says so ya is simply making things up.

Biblical death- nephesh, was and only is for creatures with a soul, these things do not have a soul so their passing does not count as 'death'.

Now you are finally on track.
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

This refers to the act of observing, refashioning, pressing, squeezing, using of natural man to be used and put into order, so that he now has a soul.

“Let Us make
נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה (na·‘ă·śeh)
Verb - Qal - Imperfect Cohortative if contextual - first person common plural
Strong's Hebrew 6213:
1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make 1a)
to do, work, make, produce
to deal (with)
to act, act with effect, effect
to make
to prepare
to attend to,
put in order
to observe,
celebrate
to acquire
to appoint,
ordain,
institute
to bring about
to use
to spend,
pass
to be done
to be made
to be produced
to be offered
to be observed
to be used
to press, squeeze

All of this definition is about changing something that already exists.

man
אָדָ֛ם (’ā·ḏām)
Noun - masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 120: 1) man, mankind 1a) man, human being 1b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT) 1c) Adam, first man 1d) city in Jordan valley

in Our image,
בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ (bə·ṣal·mê·nū)
Preposition-b | Noun - masculine singular construct | first person common plural
Strong's Hebrew 6754: 1) image 1a) images (of tumours, mice, heathen gods) 1b) image, likeness (of resemblance) 1c) mere, empty, image, semblance (fig.)

after Our likeness,
כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ (kiḏ·mū·ṯê·nū)
Preposition-k | Noun - feminine singular construct | first person common plural
Strong's Hebrew 1823: n f 1) likeness, similitude adv 2) in the likeness of, like as



All of this definition is about changing animals that already exists into man.

 

[J_B_]

All of this definition is about changing animals that already exists into man.

If we ever doubted people are creative, all we have to do is look at the ways they contort themselves to interpret Genesis.

 

[chad kincham]

The article more specifically declares the problem seeking to be resolved:
"if present day observed dissipation rates are representative of the past, the moon must be younger than 1500 Ma (Hansen, 1982, Sonett, 1996)."

So really this article comes down to a discussion of dissipation rates, and is not actually focused on recession.

The article further describes a solution for the problem, and ultimately concludes:
"Results from an established numerical tidal model suggest that the tidal dissipation during the Cenozoic and Late Cretaceous were weaker than at present, with the exception of the glacial states over the last 2 Ma. It is very likely that the Earth–Moon system is unusually dissipative at present. Consequently, the Moon's recession rate was slower in the deep past than predicted using PD dissipation rates, supporting the old-age Earth–Moon model."

In other words, dissipation was weaker in the past and therefore recession was slower, and thus the old-age earth-moon model accurately reflects reality.

Aka the moon is 4.5 billion years old old, as per this article.

Do you disagree with your own source?

Nice spin attempt,

You did your calculations using today’s known rate and claimed ten billion years, yet today’s rates show 1.5 billion years - which is more that the 1 billion i was remembering research showing, but still problematic by 3 BY for the ToE.

And speculation as to why the calculations only show 1.5 BY, is far from proof that the discrepancy isn’t due to the moon being much younger than the claimed 4.3 BY by evolutionists. - however my main point now is that your calculations in triumphantly rebutting my post, were way off from what peer reviewed science shows.


Maranatha

 

[SkyWriting]

If we ever doubted people are creative, all we have to do is look at the ways they contort themselves to interpret Genesis.

It's just something I discovered. It's not a big deal.
I wondered where the Ex Nihilo idea came from and found it - unfounded.

“Let Us make
נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה (na·‘ă·śeh)
Verb - Qal - Imperfect Cohortative if contextual - first person common plural
Strong's Hebrew 6213:
1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make 1a)
to do, work, make, produce
to deal (with)
to act, act with effect, effect
to make
to prepare
to attend to,
put in order
to observe,
celebrate
to acquire
to appoint,
ordain,
institute
to bring about
to use
to spend,
pass
to be done
to be made
to be produced
to be offered
to be observed
to be used
to press, squeeze

All of this definition is about changing something that already exists.

 

[Job 33:6]

Nice spin attempt,

You did your calculations using today’s known rate and claimed ten billion years, yet today’s rates show 1.5 billion years - which is more that the 1 billion i was remembering research showing, but still problematic by 3 BY for the ToE.

And speculation as to why the calculations only show 1.5 BY, is far from proof that the discrepancy isn’t due to the moon being much younger than the claimed 4.3 BY by evolutionists. - however my main point now is that your calculations in triumphantly rebutting my post, were way off from what peer reviewed science shows.


Maranatha

My calculations weren't off at all. Actually they were factual. I never said that I thought that the moon was 10 billion years old but rather I simply noted that if we assumed a constant rate of recession, that's where we would end up.

Further, I just quoted your own article. No spin needed.

The article further describes a solution for the problem, and ultimately concludes:
"Results from an established numerical tidal model suggest that the tidal dissipation during the Cenozoic and Late Cretaceous were weaker than at present, with the exception of the glacial states over the last 2 Ma. It is very likely that the Earth–Moon system is unusually dissipative at present. Consequently, the Moon's recession rate was slower in the deep past than predicted using PD dissipation rates, supporting the old-age Earth–Moon model."

In other words, dissipation was weaker in the past and therefore recession was slower, and thus the old-age earth-moon model accurately reflects reality.

Aka the moon is 4.5 billion years old old, as per this article.

Do you disagree with your own source?

 

[J_B_]

I wondered where the Ex Nihilo idea came from and found it - unfounded.

Just looking up a word in Strong's isn't much of an argument against Ex Nihilo. It takes a little more scholarship than that.

It depends on the version of Ex Nihilo you refer to - as always there isn't just one version. Some go too far, but in it's simplest form it's a very important theological point, and it has support from other Biblical passages.

But I don't know where you're at on the theological spectrum. For the easy-breezy end of the scale, nothing is a big deal.

 

[SkyWriting]

Just looking up a word in Strong's isn't much of an argument against Ex Nihilo. It takes a little more scholarship than that. It depends on the version of Ex Nihilo you refer to - as always there isn't just one version. Some go too far, but in it's simplest form it's a very important theological point, and it has support from other Biblical passages. But I don't know where you're at on the theological spectrum. For the easy-breezy end of the scale, nothing is a big deal.

Hmmm. You are critical of my analysis using Strongs, but offer nothing.
You claim multiple versions of Ex Nihilo but produce none.
You suggest biblical support "from other Biblical passages" but cite zero.

You'll need more legs to stand on to ever become a paid critic.

 

[J_B_]

Hmmm. You are critical of my analysis using Strongs, but offer nothing.
You claim multiple versions of Ex Nihilo but produce none.
You suggest biblical support "from other Biblical passages" but cite zero.

You'll need more legs to stand on to ever become a paid critic.

Since you don't seem familiar with my approach, it's called courtesy. I was not attacking you, but explaining my view of your position. It is possible to disagree and remain polite. In so doing, rather than ignore what you've said, rushing in to greedily present my view, I patiently waited. I gave you the opportunity to reply to my objection.

If you want to know my view and what supports it, all you have to do is ask.

 

[SkyWriting]

Since you don't seem familiar with my approach, it's called courtesy. I was not attacking you, but explaining my view of your position. It is possible to disagree and remain polite. In so doing, rather than ignore what you've said, rushing in to greedily present my view, I patiently waited. I gave you the opportunity to reply to my objection. If you want to know my view and what supports it, all you have to do is ask.

Just looking up a word in Strong's isn't much of an argument against Ex Nihilo. It takes a little more scholarship than that. It depends on the version of Ex Nihilo you refer to - as always there isn't just one version. Some go too far, but in it's simplest form it's a very important theological point, and it has support from other Biblical passages. But I don't know where you're at on the theological spectrum. For the easy-breezy end of the scale, nothing is a big deal.

As a former YEC, it took a good amount of research to change my views.
There is no scriptural support for the YEC position, in the original languages.
Strong's is fairly extensive. Nothing there even hints at "Ex Nihilo" a word not found in scripture. If "Ex Nihilo" was a fact, then the language used would not have multiple meanings.

To say something was created instantly out of nothing, is a far cry different concept than the definitions found below.

Genesis 2:4
HEB: בְּהִבָּֽרְאָ֑ם בְּי֗וֹם עֲשׂ֛וֹת יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים
NAS: God made earth
KJV: God made the earth

accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow,

A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application (as follows) -- accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress(-ed), (put in) execute(-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, (fight-)ing man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfill, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ((a feast)), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, pracise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be (warr-)ior, work(-man), yield, use.

Strong's Hebrew: 6213. עָשָׂה (asah) -- accomplish

Glad I could help you out.

 

[J_B_]

There is no scriptural support for the YEC position, in the original languages.
Strong's is fairly extensive. Nothing there even hints at "Ex Nihilo" a word not found in scripture. If "Ex Nihilo" was a fact, then the language used would not have multiple meanings.

First, multiple meanings are common for many words. If you are going to parse the language, you need an extensive understanding of the syntax of Hebrew. A common theory among linguists is that language is not a mere communication of word definitions, but how those words are used in context. So, you're going to need to understand the context.

Second, neither is the word 'incest' ever used in the Bible, yet it is clear from various passages that God disapproves of incest. As long as a term doesn't add to Scripture, it is perfectly acceptable to use that term to describe Biblical concepts.

As a former YEC, it took a good amount of research to change my views.

Good for you. I agree that YEC is full of holes. It's not my view either. Though you still haven't asked, I will offer one instance of a Biblical passage that supports ex nihilo. I'll start with the most obvious, and if you wish to continue the discussion, we can move on to the more subtle passages.

Therefore, to begin, consider John 1:3