Why I Became a Young-Earth Creationist &

[nate895]

[FONT=&quot]How My New Beliefs Brought Me Closer to God[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]
Up until a few weeks ago, I was an Old-Earth Creationist who believed the Earth was billions of years ago, and the days of Genesis were not literal days. I even used to entertain the thought of theistic evolution as a possibility. I have now come to the realization that things I had come to believe from science class (which, no matter how hard they tried, never convinced me of evolution) concerning the origin of life, the Earth, and the Universe, and how much time it has taken to get here are nothing more than interpretations based on scientist’s a priori assumptions. I came to this conclusion through extensive debates on origins on a libertarian political forum which led to investigation and further research into the Young-Earth point-of-view (based mostly on Answers in Genesis). It also seems as if God has really been guiding my life through the past month or so, coming upon more and more reasons to believe the Word.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
My first discovery of a reason to believe the Earth was very young was the fact that I found out that many scientists assume naturalism as their basis for belief in billions of years. The only “evidence” that the Earth was older than a plain reading of Genesis is based on unverifiable assumptions about the past. Most scientists are relatively uniformitarian in their outlook on the past, and even neo-catastrophists have taken a lot of the assumptions of uniformitarian scientists. Therefore, they believe that the same processes at work today are what were active in the past. That is not necessarily the case. Most scientists also assume evolution, which requires billions of years for it to even have a chance at working. Radiometric dating itself, one the most oft cited source for billions of years, is based on several assumptions that can’t be proven beyond doubt, and often gets woefully wrong dates for rocks that have known ages. Rocks resulting from the Mt. St. Helen’s eruption were tested for age, and they got a date 500,000-3,700,000 years, when we know for absolute, undeniable, fact that these rocks were less than two decades old at the time of testing. This puts a lot of holes in radiometric dating. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
After discovering that unverifiable assumptions are the basis for a lot of scientific work guessing at the past, I began to look at the world through the lenses of naturalism, old-earth creationism, and young-earth creationism to see which made the world the most clear in my mind. I discovered that the clearest way to look at the world is through the lens that the Bible is the inerrant Word of the One True God. The other lenses simply leave a lot more questions than answers, and the answers there are seem absurd when you really think about it. The outright naturalist (i.e., one who believes that nature explains everything) believes print shops explode to create dictionaries, organization comes from chaos, and that nature obeys laws despite the fact nothing gave those laws. The Christian theistic evolutionist believes a loving God decided to create the world through a process of death and destruction, and then say he loved the world and give his son to die for its sins. The Christian old-earth creationist believes a loving God decided to allow death and destruction go on in His “very good” creation, and then deceive us as to the reasons behind the horrors of the present state of affairs and His laws. I think both theistic evolution and forms of creationism are explained by Romans 1:20 (KJV):[/FONT]

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

[FONT=&quot]Proverbs 1:7 states “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Knowing this, it is important to look at the world through a Biblical lens. This provides the clearest way to see it. The entire Universe can be explained based on Biblical principles and taking Genesis as historicity. The fossil record can be read as the story of the Flood, and its aftereffects. Our present state of affairs is explained by Adam’s sin. The appearance of old age can be explained by the effects of the Flood, and that God created a mature universe on the days of creation. For any difficulties one can present to a young-earth, there are models to deal with them, or can be easily explained away. I encourage all of you to go to Answers in Genesis to see their arguments, for I have been convinced by them, and the world became clearer.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
As for how this brought me closer to God, there is a very simple reason. It means Scripture says what means and means what It says. The World is so clear, God created a beautiful world of bounty, and man wrecked it by sinning. This state of affairs is not the way that God intended it, it is merely a temporary stop before God restores Heaven and Earth as it was on the very first Sabbath Day. Furthermore, the universe, being created by a logical God, can be explained using His Word and human observations. Any attempts to apply present processes to explain the past fail miserably, and any explanations at odds with the Word of God cannot be trusted. They can never be proven, and we have a Book inspired, and in some places written, by the perfect witness to all history, God Himself. I am now more excited about going out into the World and spreading the Word of God to every soul I can possibly get to, and am even considering becoming a minister. I have also felt the presence of the Lord much more in prayer and in everyday life. None of this is to say that those who believe in billions of years, but who believe Christ died for them, cannot be close to God, it just means belief in the first parts of Genesis is the foundation upon which the Gospel is built and building the rest on a faulty foundation might lead to collapse later on.[/FONT]

 

[wayseer]

Most scientists are relatively uniformitarian in their outlook on the past

And on what basis do you draw that startling conclusion? Do you have a PhD in biology, or geology or archaeology? Do you participate in peer review? Probably not. Until you undertake a recognised course of study you cannot come up with such a sweeping generalization just because its music to your ears. You see, you are doing exactly what you accuse those scientists of doing - making sweeping statements.

 

[nate895]

And on what basis do you draw that startling conclusion? Do you have a PhD in biology, or geology or archaeology? Do you participate in peer review? Probably not. Until you undertake a recognised course of study you cannot come up with such a sweeping generalization just because its music to your ears. You see, you are doing exactly what you accuse those scientists of doing - making sweeping statements.

Yeah, except mine are backed up by polls and studies done of religious beliefs of scientists, not to mention debating them. Also, the people I read had Ph.Ds in the fields you mentioned. Also, just because I am not a Ph.D of biology doesn't mean I am incapable of using logic and reasoning on biology-related subjects.

 

[wayseer]

Yeah, except mine are backed up by polls and studies done of religious beliefs of scientists, not to mention debating them. Also, the people I read had Ph.Ds in the fields you mentioned. Also, just because I am not a Ph.D of biology doesn't mean I am incapable of using logic and reasoning on biology-related subjects.

Indeed - but you have avoided the question - on what grounds do you support your claim that

Most scientists are relatively uniformitarian in their outlook on the past

?

The reason I confront you on this point is that I doubt very much you can come up with any such reference. The reason you could not do so is because if 'scientists' actually took such an outlook they would not be scientists but something else. If then you base the rest of your thesis on those who are not scientists you will, naturally, arrive at an unscientific answer.

By the way 14C dating is not the only methodology of determining age - there are other methods.

Now, if you are going to stack the Bible up against science you might want to do some further study. For instance, you might like to examine how it is that no archaeological evidence for King Solomon's Temple has ever been found. If the edifice was constructed according to the Bible some evidence would exist in the archaeological record. You can't hide something that big nor so well documented. The fact is there was never such an a building as outlined in the Bible.

My point is - you beliefs concerning God do not need to conform to rational thought. Whether the world is 15 billions of years old or 15 thousand does not matter.

 

[nate895]

Indeed - but you have avoided the question - on what grounds do you support your claim that ?

The reason I confront you on this point is that I doubt very much you can come up with any such reference. The reason you could not do so is because if 'scientists' actually took such an outlook they would not be scientists but something else. If then you base the rest of your thesis on those who are not scientists you will, naturally, arrive at an unscientific answer.

By the way 14C dating is not the only methodology of determining age - there are other methods.

Now, if you are going to stack the Bible up against science you might want to do some further study. For instance, you might like to examine how it is that no archaeological evidence for King Solomon's Temple has ever been found. If the edifice was constructed according to the Bible some evidence would exist in the archaeological record. You can't hide something that big nor so well documented. The fact is there was never such an a building as outlined in the Bible.

My point is - you beliefs concerning God do not need to conform to rational thought. Whether the world is 15 billions of years old or 15 thousand does not matter.

I have told you, I have read some polls on the beliefs of scientists, and a majority don't believe in any God and never could, and this one has admitted as such:

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’

And, a creationist notes:

Now it might surprise readers without a scientific background to hear me say that very few scientists have any real idea what science is. However, if you are a scientist you will probably acknowledge the truth of this seemingly nonsensical statement. In my undergraduate studies and postgraduate research, I can’t ever recall anyone telling me what science is (and isn’t!), showing me what it is, or providing me with an explanation of how it operates. If you are studying science or working with scientists and you doubt me, I challenge you to ask them for a definition of what is “scientific.” After a pause, most of them would not be able to give an answer much deeper than “It is what scientists do.”

As for King Solomon's Temple, Arabs (understandably) won't let there be any excavations on the site of the Temple, where their Dome of the Rock now stands. Also, I said radiometric dating, which is all dating using radioactive half-lives. C-14 actually provides some evidence for a younger Earth because it cannot be measured beyond 100,000 years even according to evolutionary assumptions, and there has been dating on supposedly millions of years old rock and fossils that have produced dates.

 

[wayseer]

I have told you, I have read some polls on the beliefs of scientists, and a majority don't believe in any God and never could, and this one has admitted as such

Don't put your trust in God based on polls.

Thank you for the names. Now I can understand where you are coming from.

But my point still stands - whether scientists prove the earth is 15 billions of years old or 15000 years does not matter with respect to your relationship with God. I am happy that have found that relationship closer as a result of your studies. The step now is one of faith - that what scientists say does not matter with respect to your belief.

As for King Solomon's Temple, Arabs (understandably) won't let there be any excavations on the site of the Temple, where their Dome of the Rock now stands.

I am aware of where KST is suppose to be. Looking under the dome would be an advantage but there are other avenues archaeologists pursue. In a land so rich in writing and with so rich a heritage one would expect to find some reference to KST. But nothing has been found.

As I said scientists don't just rely on C14 dating.

 

[itisdeliciouscake]

My point is - you beliefs concerning God do not need to conform to rational thought. Whether the world is 15 billions of years old or 15 thousand does not matter.

it does matter, as whether it is 15 billion or 15 thousand years old directly says whether or not the Bible is truth.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Also, I said radiometric dating, which is all dating using radioactive half-lives. C-14 actually provides some evidence for a younger Earth because it cannot be measured beyond 100,000 years even according to evolutionary assumptions, and there has been dating on supposedly millions of years old rock and fossils that have produced dates.

Yes, but those dates were not done using Carbon. Carbon-14 is unreliable past a certain amount of time. There are other atoms with much longer half lives which were likely used to get those dates. Radiometric dating does not supply evidence for YECism. It, like every other physical science, points to an old universe.

 

[nate895]

Don't put your trust in God based on polls.

Thank you for the names. Now I can understand where you are coming from.

But my point still stands - whether scientists prove the earth is 15 billions of years old or 15000 years does not matter with respect to your relationship with God. I am happy that have found that relationship closer as a result of your studies. The step now is one of faith - that what scientists say does not matter with respect to your belief.



I am aware of where KST is suppose to be. Looking under the dome would be an advantage but there are other avenues archaeologists pursue. In a land so rich in writing and with so rich a heritage one would expect to find some reference to KST. But nothing has been found.

As I said scientists don't just rely on C14 dating.

I don't trust in God based on polls, I trust in Him because I believe that he is out there and the Bible is His Word. I looked to see if those claims are indeed true, and surveys have indeed suggested that is the case.

As for scientists "proving" the age of the Earth, they'll never prove the age of the Earth. In order to determine the age of the Earth, you have to assume something that cannot be scientifically observed to be true. However, the entire story of the Bible depends on a straightforward reading of Genesis. The entire premise of the story is that God created a world without sin and without death. Then, Satan rebelled and led man into rebellion by encouraging the violation of the one "no" God gave to man, and because this happened, we live in a fallen world that needs Christ to come back and save it from sin. If we accept millions of years, then we have to accept that this isn't true. If we accept that this isn't true, then the foundation of the Gospel is destroyed. If the foundation of the Gospel isn't believed in, then it is only a matter of time until the whole thing collapses. That is what we have seen since churches started to compromise and accept millions of years; less and less people are in the pews. Churches need to teach about how the World is created, and about how science based on the Bible does indeed provide answers and isn't "pseudoscience," and if it is, so is "evolutionary biology" and other such nonsense.

Edit: As for the Temple of Solomon not having a record outside the Bible, that doesn't mean it wasn't there. The reason why other writings wouldn't have mentioned it was because they didn't really care about some foreigner's religious beliefs, and the Israelites recorded their history in the Bible. The only reason why historians don't accept the Bible as true is because it has religious connotations. As far as the Kingdom of Israel goes, it has as much credibility as any other ancient text describing the events of their civilizations, but those didn't invoke God as being involved in their events, so secular historians readily accept them.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I don't trust in God based on polls, I trust in Him because I believe that he is out there and the Bible is His Word. I looked to see if those claims are indeed true, and surveys have indeed suggested that is the case.

As for scientists "proving" the age of the Earth, they'll never prove the age of the Earth. In order to determine the age of the Earth, you have to assume something that cannot be scientifically observed to be true. However, the entire story of the Bible depends on a straightforward reading of Genesis. The entire premise of the story is that God created a world without sin and without death. Then, Satan rebelled and led man into rebellion by encouraging the violation of the one "no" God gave to man, and because this happened, we live in a fallen world that needs Christ to come back and save it from sin. If we accept millions of years, then we have to accept that this isn't true. If we accept that this isn't true, then the foundation of the Gospel is destroyed. If the foundation of the Gospel isn't believed in, then it is only a matter of time until the whole thing collapses. That is what we have seen since churches started to compromise and accept millions of years; less and less people are in the pews. Churches need to teach about how the World is created, and about how science based on the Bible does indeed provide answers and isn't "pseudoscience," and if it is, so is "evolutionary biology" and other such nonsense.

"You weren't there" is a rather fallacious argument. You might as well assume the entirety of history has not happen. In fact, I can tell you that the world was created exactly as it was, with everyone's memories completely intact, last Thursday.

Genesis being the foundation for the entirety of Christian truth is also a tired argument. The spiritual truth contained within the account does not become diminished with the discovery of modern scientific knowledge. The death of humanity's perfect conscience came about because of the fall. They fell into sin. Jesus showed up and saved everyone. The end!

You do not have to depend on a literal reading of the creation account to recognize the spiritual truth of Christianity. There are plenty of allegorical readings of Genesis that retain the truth and agree with modern science.

 

[nate895]

Yes, but those dates were not done using Carbon. Carbon-14 is unreliable past a certain amount of time. There are other atoms with much longer half lives which were likely used to get those dates. Radiometric dating does not supply evidence for YECism. It, like every other physical science, points to an old universe.

No, creationists had fossils tested that were supposedly millions of years old. If that was indeed the case, you'd expect near 0 C-14. They actually got dates in the 50,000 range, which is just below the 80,000-100,000 year limit. As for radiometric dating pointing to an old universe, in order to test that way you have to assume things about the past (like that there was 0 of the daughter element when the rock was put there), and so it cannot "prove" the Earth is old. Like I said, we have tested rocks of known ages (the rocks produced as a result of the St. Helen's eruption) and have gotten dates hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years older than we know for a fact they are.

 

[Dark_Lite]

No, creationists had fossils tested that were supposedly millions of years old. If that was indeed the case, you'd expect near 0 C-14. They actually got dates in the 50,000 range, which is just below the 80,000-100,000 year limit. As for radiometric dating pointing to an old universe, in order to test that way you have to assume things about the past (like that there was 0 of the daughter element when the rock was put there), and so it cannot "prove" the Earth is old. Like I said, we have tested rocks of known ages (the rocks produced as a result of the St. Helen's eruption) and have gotten dates hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years older than we know for a fact they are.

Source? Anecdotal evidence does not make for a solid ground.

Also, more than likely the carbon dating producing wrong ages in the rocks comes from materials that have been circulating in the Earth for millions of years. They were then blew out of a volcano and solidified. Makes perfect sense.

What about all the other rocks not produced from volcanoes whose layering once again points to an old Earth?

Edit: And yes, there is nothing ever 100% proven in science unless it's a complete mathematical proof which itself is a priori. The problem with Young Earth Creationism, however is that the available evidence points nowhere towards a young Earth. All of the evidence we have states the world and universe are far older. I mean, the sheer distance between stars alone confirms this. The light we are seeing from many stars has taken well, well over 6,000 years to arrive here.

 

[nate895]

"You weren't there" is a rather fallacious argument. You might as well assume the entirety of history has not happen. In fact, I can tell you that the world was created exactly as it was, with everyone's memories completely intact, last Thursday.

Genesis being the foundation for the entirety of Christian truth is also a tired argument. The spiritual truth contained within the account does not become diminished with the discovery of modern scientific knowledge. The death of humanity's perfect conscience came about because of the fall. They fell into sin. Jesus showed up and saved everyone. The end!

You do not have to depend on a literal reading of the creation account to recognize the spiritual truth of Christianity. There are plenty of allegorical readings of Genesis that retain the truth and agree with modern science.

Jesus Himself had a literal reading of Genesis, and that is on the foundation of His Ministry.

As for your assertion that you cannot observe the past, and that is a tired argument. No, it is not. Science is based on observations and experiments in the present. Only scientific observations can be accepted as truth, and that does indeed include historical accounts. We don't have any historical or scientific accounts that are older than the Bible says the Earth is, so therefore it cannot be proven beyond doubt that the Bible isn't true.

 

[nate895]

Source? Anecdotal evidence does not make for a solid ground.

Also, more than likely the carbon dating producing wrong ages in the rocks comes from materials that have been circulating in the Earth for millions of years. They were then blew out of a volcano and solidified. Makes perfect sense.

What about all the other rocks not produced from volcanoes whose layering once again points to an old Earth?

Edit: And yes, there is nothing ever 100% proven in science unless it's a complete mathematical proof which itself is a priori. The problem with Young Earth Creationism, however is that the available evidence points nowhere towards a young Earth. All of the evidence we have states the world and universe are far older. I mean, the sheer distance between stars alone confirms this. The light we are seeing from many stars has taken well, well over 6,000 years to arrive here.

There are models where starlight can get here in in 6,000 years Earth time, and also if God used "observed time" as opposed to "calculated time," then the stars could indeed have been indeed first seen (and therefore "created") on Day 4.

As for young-earth arguments: answersi ngenesis.org/radio/pdf/youngworld.pdf (parsed)

 

[Dark_Lite]

Jesus Himself had a literal reading of Genesis, and that is on the foundation of His Ministry.

How do you know this?

As for your assertion that you cannot observe the past, and that is a tired argument. No, it is not. Science is based on observations and experiments in the present.

This seems to contradict your idea below, which says "historical accounts" are accepted as scientific.

Only scientific observations can be accepted as truth, and that does indeed include historical accounts. We don't have any historical or scientific accounts that are older than the Bible says the Earth is,

But we do.

so therefore it cannot be proven beyond doubt that the Bible isn't true.

I don't see how this conclusion follows from your premises as they are contradictory.

Also, since "you weren't there" isn't a tired argument, let's take that into consideration here. How do you know the creation account is true? How do you know that the Bible is true? After all, you weren't there when it is written. You weren't there when the Earth was created. For all you know, it's all wrong. After all, you weren't there.

 

[nate895]

How do you know this?

This seems to contradict your idea below, which says "historical accounts" are accepted as scientific.



Also, since "you weren't there" isn't a tired argument, let's take that into consideration here. How do you know the creation account is true? How do you know that the Bible is true? After all, you weren't there when it is written. You weren't there when the Earth was created. For all you know, it's all wrong. After all, you weren't there.

The Bible says on the subject (2 Timothy 3:16, KJV):

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

and (1 Thessalonians 2:13, KJV):

13For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

As for how I know the creation account is true, I believe that the Bible is Word of God, the perfect witness to history (and maker of this section), and this God cannot lie for He is perfect.

 

[Dark_Lite]

The Bible says on the subject (2 Timothy 3:16, KJV):

Alright, so I don't see anything in there that says "Genesis is literal." It merely reinforces the fact that Scripture is to be used as a basis for doctrine and teaching.

and (1 Thessalonians 2:13, KJV):

Again, nothing about the creation account being literal is there.

As for how I know the creation account is true, I believe that the Bible is Word of God, the perfect witness to history (and maker of this section), and this God cannot lie for He is perfect.

Ok, so there isn't really much that can be questioned in that area if you believe the Bible is a perfect witness to history. But, you said that God does not lie and in that we agree. So, why then would God make a universe where there is an abundance of evidence for something that directly contradicts a literal reading of the creation account?

 

[nate895]

Alright, so I don't see anything in there that says "Genesis is literal." It merely reinforces the fact that Scripture is to be used as a basis for doctrine and teaching.



Again, nothing about the creation account being literal is there.



Ok, so there isn't really much that can be questioned in that area if you believe the Bible is a perfect witness to history. But, you said that God does not lie and in that we agree. So, why then would God make a universe where there is an abundance of evidence for something that directly contradicts a literal reading of the creation account?

He created a universe that was already fully functioning. If you examined Adam on the first day, you'd probably come to the conclusion that he was at least a young adult of 20 years, if not 30 or 40 years old. In order to create a mature universe, it would have to give some appearance of age. This isn't lying, it means God didn't want us living in a primordial soup. If the universe came about by natural processes, it is indeed several billions of years old because that is how long it would take if God simply let natural processes run their course except in rare instances. That would be a deistic outlook (the only other outlook I think makes any sense). However, we know from the fact that God created a mature universe doesn't mean it is indeed billions of years old.

 

[Dark_Lite]

He created a universe that was already fully functioning. If you examined Adam on the first day, you'd probably come to the conclusion that he was at least a young adult of 20 years, if not 30 or 40 years old. In order to create a mature universe, it would have to give some appearance of age. This isn't lying, it means God didn't want us living in a primordial soup. If the universe came about by natural processes, it is indeed several billions of years old because that is how long it would take if God simply let natural processes run their course except in rare instances. That would be a deistic outlook (the only other outlook I think makes any sense). However, we know from the fact that God created a mature universe doesn't mean it is indeed billions of years old.

That is the Omphalos hypothesis, which states that God created the universe with the appearance of age. You claim that it is not lying, but your justification is that it's because God did not want us living in "primordial soup."

God is not a liar, nor is he the author of confusion. The Omphalos hypothesis clearly creates confusion. You are agreeing that the evidence of a physical universe disagrees with a literal reading of Genesis. You also agree that God is not a liar, and I assume not the author of confusion.

So, aside from not wanting us not living in a "primordial soup" why would God possibly create two different accounts of creation (the creation itself and the creation story) so drastically different from one another? To do so would be to deny humans their God-given gifts of curiosity, reason, and intelligence. We have gained knowledge in over the centuries to truly discover that which makes up our universe, and it's not in tune with a literal reading of Genesis.

 

[nate895]

That is the Omphalos hypothesis, which states that God created the universe with the appearance of age. You claim that it is not lying, but your justification is that it's because God did not want us living in "primordial soup."

God is not a liar, nor is he the author of confusion. The Omphalos hypothesis clearly creates confusion. You are agreeing that the evidence of a physical universe disagrees with a literal reading of Genesis. You also agree that God is not a liar, and I assume not the author of confusion.

So, aside from not wanting us not living in a "primordial soup" why would God possibly create two different accounts of creation (the creation itself and the creation story) so drastically different from one another? To do so would be to deny humans their God-given gifts of curiosity, reason, and intelligence. We have gained knowledge in over the centuries to truly discover that which makes up our universe, and it's not in tune with a literal reading of Genesis.

I am not saying that all evidence points to an old universe. I am saying some of it does, but there is plenty that points to a younger Earth. Comets have a life expectancy of around 100,000 years and most show an age of around 10,000 years. Naturalists get around this by saying that there is an Oort Cloud that we cannot see that gives us new comets. This hasn't been observed to be true, and if can't be observed, it isn't science. It doesn't mean that it isn't there, it just means that there is plenty of reason to doubt its existence. There is also the fact that at the sun's present rate of shrinking, if extrapolated out as uniformitarianianism assumes, means that a few hundred million to a couple billion years ago, the Earth would have been consumed by the sun, and also the moon is slowly moving away from the Earth to the point that at some point in a long age hypothesis it was actually touching the surface of the Earth. There are several theories on how you can get around these facts, but they cannot be proven and therefore must be taken on faith (which is why there are new theories all the time because people can't maintain the faith in the old one).