Why I'm not a young earth creationist...

[Humble_Disciple]

Nowhere does the Bible say that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. It's an assumption based on adding up the genealogies of the Bible, while assuming that the earth began with the creation of Adam and that there are no gaps in the genealogies.

Whereas Romans 5 says that death entered the world through Adam, this refers to human death, not animal death. If it were proven that the Bible requires belief in young earth creationism, I'd seriously consider it, but not without some difficulties.

If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, is there any evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed? The fossil record seems to contradict that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.

If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, how do you explain fossil fuels? Are there any petroleum geologists who are also young earth creationists?

How do you explain distant starlight? Not only that, how do you explain the remnants of supernovae? If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, wouldn't that mean the skies contain evidence of supernovae that never happened? How would that square with Psalm 19:1?

Even Answers in Genesis seems to admit that there are supernovae from before 10,000 years ago:

Since SNR remnants with ages much older than 7000 years are known, the supposed lack of old SNRs probably is not a good argument for recent origin. I discourage recent creationists from using it.
Are Old Supernova Remnants Really Missing? Re-Evaluating a Well-Known Young-Universe Argument

I am not a young earth creationist because these and other concerns have not been resolved, at least not to my satisfaction. Are there any young earth creationists who are able to resolve these concerns?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Nowhere does the Bible say that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. It's an assumption based on adding up the genealogies of the Bible, while assuming that the earth began with the creation of Adam and that there are no gaps in the genealogies.

Whereas Romans 5 says that death entered the world through Adam, this refers to human death, not animal death. If it were proven that the Bible requires belief in young earth creationism, I'd seriously consider it, but not without some difficulties.

If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, is there any evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed? The fossil record seems to contradict that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.

If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, how do you explain fossil fuels? Are there any petroleum geologists who are also young earth creationists?

How do you explain distant starlight? Not only that, how do you explain the remnants of supernovae? If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, wouldn't that mean the skies contain evidence of supernovae that never happened? How would that square with Psalm 19:1?

I am not a young earth creationist because these and other concerns have not been resolved, at least not to my satisfaction. Are there any young earth creationists who are able to resolve these concerns?

Ok having jumped that hurdle, can you now explain to us why you don't think that God used the mechanism of evolution to get us to where we are now in terms of all the flora and fauna we see on earth?

 

[anna ~ grace]

Nowhere does the Bible say that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. It's an assumption based on adding up the genealogies of the Bible, while assuming that the earth began with the creation of Adam and that there are no gaps in the genealogies.

Whereas Romans 5 says that death entered the world through Adam, this refers to human death, not animal death. If it were proven that the Bible requires belief in young earth creationism, I'd seriously consider it, but not without some difficulties.

If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, is there any evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed? The fossil record seems to contradict that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.

If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, how do you explain fossil fuels? Are there any petroleum geologists who are also young earth creationists?

How do you explain distant starlight? Not only that, how do you explain the remnants of supernovae? If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, wouldn't that mean the skies contain evidence of supernovae that never happened? How would that square with Psalm 19:1?

I am not a young earth creationist because these and other concerns have not been resolved, at least not to my satisfaction. Are there any young earth creationists who are able to resolve these concerns?

Human descriptions and memories of dragons do seem to indicate that humans saw and interacted with large, frightening, lizard-like creatures in the past.

I don’t mind an old-earth Creation belief. But archeology indicates that human civilization arose out of Iraq. And spread outward from there. How many thousands of years can be debated, but I do see fossils as evidence of a flood. Creatures in the sea would have been fossilized first, followed by larger land creatures as the waters rose, followed by humans.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Ok having jumped that hurdle, can you now explain to us why you don't think that God used the mechanism of evolution to get us to where we are now in terms of all the flora and fauna we see on earth?

The Bible says, from beginning to end, that Adam is the historical father of all humanity, from whom we inherited sin and death. There are numerous passages of scripture which wouldn't make sense if Adam weren't a historical person, including Jesus' genealogy in Luke.

Secondly, Genesis says that God created the animals "each according to its kind." This seems to clearly contradict evolution.

Lastly, the evidence for natural selection acting on random mutation being responsible for the complexity and diversity of life is rather flimsy. Oscillations in the size of finch beaks and the coloring of peppered moths doesn't demonstrate the capability of evolution to produce such large-scale transitions as fish to amphibian, reptile to bird, ape to man, etc.

Furthermore, there are serious deficiencies in the fossil record. Here is a non-creationist scientist in a moment of honesty about the human fossil record:
Acclaimed fossils might not depict human evolution

Please don't assume that, just because I don't believe in evolution, I must be ignorant of science. I would at least like to believe that I know more about the evidence presented for evolution than the average person. I took anthropology in college and had to write papers on it.

The reason why I created this thread is to give young earth creationists the opportunity to convince me that the creation is less than 10,000 years old. I'm not trying to debate evolution right now. I'm giving young earth creationists the chance to state their case.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Human descriptions and memories of dragons do seem to indicate that humans saw and interacted with large, frightening, lizard-like creatures in the past.

I don’t mind an old-earth Creation belief. But archeology indicates that human civilization arose out of Iraq. And spread outward from there. How many thousands of years can be debated, but I do see fossils as evidence of a flood. Creatures in the sea would have been fossilized first, followed by larger land creatures as the waters rose, followed by humans.

If dinosaurs were killed off by the flood, wouldn't the fossil record have dinosaur bones jumbled up with human bones?

Also, does the Bible literally mention dragons or is that just a mistranslation?

 

[anna ~ grace]

If dinosaurs were killed off by the flood, wouldn't the fossil record have dinosaur bones jumbled up with human bones?

Also, does the Bible literally mention dragons or is that just a mistranslation?

It mentions them. What they are, though, is debatable.

Study “out of place fossils”. It’s a cool phenomenon. And humans, being smarter, and more agile, could have easily climbed to higher ground more easily than large animals.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don’t mind an old-earth Creation belief. But archeology indicates that human civilization arose out of Iraq. And spread outward from there. How many thousands of years can be debated, but I do see fossils as evidence of a flood. Creatures in the sea would have been fossilized first, followed by larger land creatures as the waters rose, followed by humans.

But, archeology doesn't say that.

Civilization arose independently in the Indus valley, China, central America, and perhaps Egypt. There is also a long history of human encampments and settlements pre-dating the first agricultural civilizations in the Fertile Crescent (including modern Iraq).

 

[Humble_Disciple]

It mentions them. What they are, though, is debatable.

Dragon [EBD]
(1.) Heb. tannim, plural of tan. The name of some unknown creature inhabiting desert places and ruins (Job 30:29; Ps. 44:19; Isa. 13:22; 34:13; 43:20; Jer. 10:22; Micah 1:8; Mal. 1:3); probably, as translated in the Revised Version, the jackal (q.v.).

(2.) Heb. tannin. Some great sea monster (Jer. 51:34). In Isa. 51:9 it may denote the crocodile. In Gen. 1:21 (Heb. plural tanninim) the Authorized Version renders "whales," and the Revised Version "sea monsters." It is rendered "serpent" in Ex. 7:9. It is used figuratively in Ps. 74:13; Ezek. 29:3.

In the New Testament the word "dragon" is found only in Rev. 12:3, 4, 7, 9, 16, 17, etc., and is there used metaphorically of "Satan." (See WHALE.)
NETBible: Dragon

Study “out of place fossils”. It’s a cool phenomenon. And humans, being smarter, and more agile, could have easily climbed to higher ground more easily than large animals.

Isn't there usually an explanation for out of place fossils?

 

[anna ~ grace]

Isn't there usually an explanation for out of place fossils?

Sometimes. But they’re still neat, and still buck the narratives given by Darwinian Evolution.

I think a truly objective, scientific mind, determined to simply observe and describe would have to at least give some plausibility to the idea that living things did not evolve, and that the timelines often given for geological events could well be debatable.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Even Answers in Genesis seems to admit that there are supernovae from before 10,000 years ago:

Since SNR remnants with ages much older than 7000 years are known, the supposed lack of old SNRs probably is not a good argument for recent origin. I discourage recent creationists from using it.
Are Old Supernova Remnants Really Missing? Re-Evaluating a Well-Known Young-Universe Argument

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Here is a young earth creationist explanation for supernova remnants, if one can call it an explanation:

This assumes both the standard solar model and the standard model of star formation. In the creation model stars did not form from collapsing dust clouds. Furthermore a created star could start at any point in its possible life cycle and as such a star going supernova proves nothing about its age. It is only an indicator of age if all stars started out at the same stage. A created star on the other hand could be preset to go supernova the next day or billion years later.
There are too few supernova remnants for an old universe (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Does this imply a deceptive God?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here is a young earth creationist explanation for supernova remnants, if one can call it an explanation:

This assumes both the standard solar model and the standard model of star formation. In the creation model stars did not form from collapsing dust clouds. Furthermore a created star could start at any point in its possible life cycle and as such a star going supernova proves nothing about its age. It is only an indicator of age if all stars started out at the same stage. A created star on the other hand could be preset to go supernova the next day or billion years later.
There are too few supernova remnants for an old universe (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Problem: Stars don't form from collapsing dust clouds, the form from collapsing *gas* clouds. Most of the cloud is hydrogen and helium, neither of which form dust.

Does this imply a deceptive God?

Maybe, but that's not my problem.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think a truly objective, scientific mind, determined to simply observe and describe would have to at least give some plausibility to the idea that living things did not evolve, and that the timelines often given for geological events could well be debatable.

If you are only observing and describing there is no need to ascribe either evolution or another model to their origin. There's plenty of this kind of descriptive science.

If you *want* to examine how and why things are the way they are, then non-evolutionary models have not been viable based on the evidence for over a century.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

If you *want* to examine how and why things are the way they are, then non-evolutionary models have not been viable based on the evidence for over a century.

Um... Not exactly...

The fossil evidence regarding human evolution is neither reproducible nor reliable. And since paleoanthropologists cannot explain what caused humans to evolve naked skin, bipedalism, large brain, and other human features, creationists can push the non-scientific idea that this unique evolutionary path was the result of “Intelligent Design.”
Acclaimed fossils might not depict human evolution

As biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner explains, “All of the mutations that have been examined on a molecular level show that the organism has lost information and not gained it.” (“From a Frog to a Prince,” documentary by Keziah Films, 1998)...

As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” (Ibid.)
What is the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution? | GotQuestions.org

But again, I didn't create this thread to debate evolution. Instead, I'm giving young earth creationists the chance to state their case.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But again, I didn't create this thread to debate evolution. Instead, I'm giving young earth creationists the chance to state their case.

Then you should have only started the thread on the Xtians-only version of this board. (That thread is already pretty crazy though.)

 

[anna ~ grace]

If you are only observing and describing there is no need to ascribe either evolution or another model to their origin. There's plenty of this kind of descriptive science.

Exactly. The created world can be observed, described, and studied. But to claim to have been able to see something take place at the beginning is not the same thing as observation and discovery. It’s speculation. So, one can speculate based on Genesis, or speculate based on evolution, and find patterns that seem to verify either one.

Or, one can just observe the created world, and conclude that Genesis makes more sense.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Even Answers in Genesis seems to admit that there are supernovae from before 10,000 years ago:

Because they hired a trained astronomer who knows what astronomy has found, but still somehow believes in a young Earth.

Without a detailed analysis of the article you linked I don't know quite what they are actually claiming.

The supernova remnant "issue" previously raised by YECs (why aren't there so many more SNRs if the universe is really 10+ billion years old) because SNRs tend not to survive very long with the oldest at a few million years and most under 100,000 years.

As for supernovae themselves, astronomers observe supernovae that occurred billions of years ago every night, but who's light is only now arriving here.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Exactly. The created world can be observed, described, and studied. But to claim to have been able to see something take place at the beginning is not the same thing as observation and discovery. It’s speculation. So, one can speculate based on Genesis, or speculate based on evolution, and find patterns that seem to verify either one.

It is not speculation. I am sorry you do not understand that. I hope it is not from an unwillingness to see.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Because they hired a trained astronomer who knows what astronomy has found, but still somehow believes in a young Earth.

Without a detailed analysis of the article you linked I don't know quite what they are actually claiming.

The supernova remnant "issue" previously raised by YECs (why aren't there so many more SNRs if the universe is really 10+ billion years old) because SNRs tend not to survive very long with the oldest at a few million years and most under 100,000 years.

As for supernovae themselves, astronomers observe supernovae that occurred billions of years ago every night, but who's light is only now arriving here.

Couldn't God create stars at any stage of development? Couldn't God create a star set to have a supernova tomorrow or the next day if he wanted to?

 

[VirOptimus]

Couldn't God create stars at any stage of development? Couldn't God create a star set to have a supernova tomorrow or the next day if he wanted to?

There is no credible data supporting the existence of god(s).

As miracles/magic/god(s) can explain everything they explain nothing.