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?

 

[Not David]

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?

The sin of Adam brought corruption to the whole cosmos, that's how it has always been understood, and what do I care about fossils, people know say dinosaurs are like chickens. lol

 

[Not me]

There is tons of evidence for a young earth, soft tissue in dinosaur bones is just the start..

A follower of His, Not me

 

[Job 33:6]

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?

The usual responses are as follow:

1. There is evidence for people living alongside dinosaurs, including cave paintings, pottery artistry, and stone etchings of dinosaurs (if you believe they aren't forgeries or are of other animals). There is also a photograph that depicts a t rex track with a human footprint in it (if you believe it isn't forgery). Denial of the fossil record is necessary for this position, so contradicting evidence from paleontology isn't accepted.

2. Fossil fuels can be made in laboratories in a matter of hours. Therefore the earth could also make them in hours. If you believe this logic holds up in that the earth can do what our machines can and just as rapidly.

3. The speed of light has changed and was really fast in the past, and has slowed down since. Therefore objects hundreds of millions of light years away could be visible today. I have not heard explanations for galaxies themselves (not just their light but the galactic physical body) and their tails that span hundreds of thousands of light years.

These are the usual "scientific" responses.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

The sin of Adam brought corruption to the whole cosmos, that's how it has always been understood, and what do I care about fossils, people know say dinosaurs are like chickens. lol

Um... Okay... Where does the Bible specifically say that animal death was caused by Adam's sin?

 

[Job 33:6]

The usual responses are as follow:

1. There is evidence for people living alongside dinosaurs, including cave paintings, pottery artistry, and stone etchings of dinosaurs (if you believe they aren't forgeries or are of other animals). There is also a photograph that depicts a t rex track with a human footprint in it (if you believe it isn't forgery). Denial of the fossil record is necessary for this position, so contradicting evidence from paleontology isn't accepted.

2. Fossil fuels can be made in laboratories in a matter of hours. Therefore the earth could also make them in hours. If you believe this logic holds up in that the earth can do what our machines can and just as rapidly.

3. The speed of light has changed and was really fast in the past, and has slowed down since. Therefore objects hundreds of millions of light years away could be visible today. I have not heard explanations for galaxies themselves (not just their light but the galactic physical body) and their tails that span hundreds of thousands of light years.

These are the usual scientific responses.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

There is tons of evidence for a young earth, soft tissue in dinosaur bones is just the start..

A follower of His, Not me

That seems interesting. Are you able to explain the remnants of supernovae that occurred much earlier than 10,000 years ago? Also, how do you explain fossil fuels? Are there any petroleum geologists who subscribe to young earth creationism?

 

[Humble_Disciple]

View attachment 300979

View attachment 300980

View attachment 300981

Isn't it possible that there were cavemen who inadvertently dug up dinosaur bones and then depicted it in art, rather than witnessing living dinosaurs?

 

[Humble_Disciple]

3. The speed of light has changed and was really fast in the past, and has slowed down since. Therefore objects hundreds of millions of light years away could be visible today. I have not heard explanations for galaxies themselves (not just their light but the galactic physical body) and their tails that span hundreds of thousands of light years.

How do young earth creationists explain supernovae from before 10,000 years ago?

 

[Not me]

That seems interesting. Are you able to explain the remnants of supernovae that occurred much earlier than 10,000 years ago? Also, how do you explain fossil fuels? Are there any petroleum geologists who subscribe to young earth creationism?

Yes, there are answer for all these if you search for the peer reviewed papers..

Many don’t get fanfare because they go against the preferred dogma of the day..

Be blessed in your searching, Not me

 

[Job 33:6]

Isn't it possible that there were cavemen who inadvertently dug up dinosaur bones and then depicted it in art, rather than witnessing living dinosaurs?

I suppose that could be possible. Personally i think the painting could very well just be a forgery or just an abstract looking lizard as well. Hard to say.

The "stegosaurus" carving actually has a horn on its head as well, as if maybe it were a rhino or a pig with vegetation behind it.

I think it comes down to what quality of evidence you're willing to accept. And maybe the background you're approaching the topic from.

Personally I am not a young earther but this is what they tell me.

 

[Job 33:6]

How do young earth creationists explain supernovae from before 10,000 years ago?

Well, when it comes to the speed of light, often times they suggest that perhaps light moved faster in the past. And therefore could reach us in 6000 years, even if an object may be a million light years away.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, when it comes to the speed of light, often times they suggest that perhaps light moved faster in the past. And therefore could reach us in 6000 years, even if an object may be a million light years away.

But I'm not sure what their response is to galaxy tails that span hundreds of thousands of light years in distance.

Related topics though one involves light and the other involved stars and planets.

But I suppose if light were stretched and sped up, so too could matter. Hypothetically.

Again, not saying I believe this, but remember, it all comes down to what quality of evidence we are willing to accept. What standards we have. Essentially.

Anyone can say anything. The answers really come down to your "standards" of acceptance and belief. How you define credibility and evidence vs sham.

What is the difference in credibility of the fossil record vs these paintings/etchings?

What is the difference between what scientists observe (or what they/we say that we observe), and what Genesis reads?

Can you see a difference in these, and if so, what is that difference?

 

[Not me]

There are many lectures on YouTube on both sides of this debate.. Many are quite thought provoking…

To the hearts that would…

Not me

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Well, when it comes to the speed of light, often times they suggest that perhaps light moved faster in the past. And therefore could reach us in 6000 years, even if an object may be a million light years away.

Supernovae from before 10,000 years ago is different from the speed of light and how it relates to starlight.

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

 

[Job 33:6]

Supernovae from before 10,000 years ago is different from the speed of light and how it relates to starlight.

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

I see.

Yea. This isn't uncommon. In the YEC "science" world, there are many articles like these. One person makes a "scientific" fancy sounding argument. The argument sways that readers followers. Another YEC arrives and shuts it down. But often times the original article is still available and the latter is difficult for lay people to understand anyway.

Often times these articles, both the original and response, in my experience, tend to leave out significant concepts. But it's difficult for non-scientists to navigate these murky waters. Even as a geologist, this article to me looks like a giant subjective mess. Very difficult to translate without a lot of time and study. It's also formatted in a very unscientific way. It's just sloppy commentary rather than formatted methodical scientific literature.

This topic seems too complicated for the usual internet discussion. You are unlikely to get a response here.

 

[Job 33:6]

I see.

Yea. This isn't uncommon. In the YEC "science" world, there are many articles like these. One person makes a "scientific" fancy sounding argument. The argument sways that readers followers. Another YEC arrives and shuts it down. But often times the original article is still available and the latter is difficult for lay people to understand anyway.

Often times these articles, both the original and response, in my experience, tend to leave out significant concepts. But it's difficult for non-scientists to navigate these murky waters. Even as a geologist, this article to me looks like a giant subjective mess. Very difficult to translate without a lot of time and study. It's also formatted in a very unscientific way. It's just sloppy commentary rather than formatted methodical scientific literature.

This topic seems too complicated for the usual internet discussion. You are unlikely to get a response here.

I recall a YEC geology article arguing that a fossilized forest had been deposited by flood waters. Trees floated upright and just landed underwater in a way that made it look as if it was a forest.

And then a second YEC came in and wrote an article saying that the forest was rooted in ancient soils and the trees were upright and there were burrows and animal trackways in the soils from insects and reptiles. And therefore it was "pre-flood" forest.

But all the while, both articles overlooked really basic conceptual issues, the second in particular seemed to have forgotten about superposition and the forest existing in carboniferous strata (all basic geology 101) (and therefore could not be pre-flood). While the first article made no mention of things like reptilian foot tracks in prehistoric soil along the base of the trees meaning that the land was truly original land in which trees grew (and therefore wasn't deposited underwater), seems like common sense to me.

Being a geologist, sometimes I can only translate their geology articles (when they attempt to write technical ones). in which case I can see these simple, yet potentially deliberate, omissions of information. So when I read their articles on biology and astronomy, I tend to assume the same basic oversights. Biologists and astronomers note similar experiences during their own observations, in which case I trust other scientists more than these YEC sources because they (other scientists) experience what I experience.

So when you post articles of astronomy with two YECs debating topics, I tend to take them with a grain of salt. Especially AIG articles.

I digress.

 

[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?

 

[Job 33:6]

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

Does this imply a deceptive God?

"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."

This sounds similar to the argument that in Genesis, God created Adam as an adult. Giving Adam the appearance of age. If God did this with Adam, who is to say that it was not done with stars too?

If you were alive in the garden of Eden, and you saw Adam as an adult, you might think Adam were perhaps 20 years old or more. And maybe you would say "wow Adam is only 1 week old but looks like he's been around for 20 years, does this imply a deceptive God?".

And the answer for them is that if you believe in a literal Adam, and you believe in Genesis as it is written, that Adam was made from clay as an adult, then God is not being deceptive, but rather it's clearly said in Genesis.

But of course this response becomes quite complicated when we look at the earth and universe. The earth contains what I would call "scars" that tell stories. Such as a cenozoic dinosaur track that suggests that an event happened hundreds of millions of years ago.

Imagine if God created Adam from clay, instantly at the age of 20, and you walked up to Adam and he had some form of scar that looked like perhaps an animal scratched him. You might say "Adam, how did you get that scar? What happened?"

You would ask these questions as if you believed that Adam actually had a history and past in which he could explain the origins of his scar. But instead, in a young earth view, perhaps Adam might simply say that it's just how I was made.

It's quite strange isn't it? @Humble_Disciple

But again, it comes down to standards of belief. If you believe in things like the cave paintings, and the human print in a t-rex track, maybe you can believe that the earth doesn't have old scars, thus eliminating these odd thoughts.

And so that's the angle they take, no matter how deep down the rabbit hole they go.

And yet, the unfortunate dichotomy is that if you do not accept this YEC train of thought, then you're effectively challenging the literal existence of Adam as described in genesis. And anything that challenges scripture in such a way, for many Christians, is a big no no, given that without a literal Adam eating of the tree of life and having sin come through Adam at the fall, Christ dying for our sins becomes complicated.

And thus for many lay-YECs, it might be easier to simply fall in line with Ken Hams Ark encounter, no matter how strange some of these ideas might sound, than it would be for many lay-YECs to unravel the complexity of scientific literature.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

If it were proven that the Bible requires belief in young earth creationism, I would be a young earth creationist. Has anyone in this thread proven that the Bible requires it?