Young Earth Science
Forum category
I’ve read some books, and I’ve been to some seminars, but I have this nagging question about YE science. Every YE advocate I’ve talked to has told me that the earth, like Adam, was created with the appearance of age. So, if one were to look at Adam the day after he was created, there would be no way to prove that he was just created. He would have the same size, shape, muscular development, hormonal levels, etc. of a mature man. We could only know that Adam was 1 day old if we had the inside info from God.
Yet, these same scientists devote dozens of pages in their books to “refuting” the dating methods and such that geologists use to determine the age of rocks. So, if some geologists date a rock at 20 million years, the YE guys gives 17 reasons why the dating method is faulty and it should register in the low thousands. But wait, according to the YE principle of creation with age, shouldn’t the rock measure much older than the YE person believes it actually is? In fact, wouldn’t a scientist who never read Genesis be rationally justified in concluding that the universe is vastly old, just like our hypothetical Adam examiner would be justified in believing him to be a mature man? Further, wouldn’t that actually eliminate the whole idea of YE science, since there shouldn’t be any empirical data that confirms a young age? It’s just biblical assertion determining the use of the empirical evidence.
Yet, these same scientists devote dozens of pages in their books to “refuting” the dating methods and such that geologists use to determine the age of rocks. So, if some geologists date a rock at 20 million years, the YE guys gives 17 reasons why the dating method is faulty and it should register in the low thousands. But wait, according to the YE principle of creation with age, shouldn’t the rock measure much older than the YE person believes it actually is? In fact, wouldn’t a scientist who never read Genesis be rationally justified in concluding that the universe is vastly old, just like our hypothetical Adam examiner would be justified in believing him to be a mature man? Further, wouldn’t that actually eliminate the whole idea of YE science, since there shouldn’t be any empirical data that confirms a young age? It’s just biblical assertion determining the use of the empirical evidence.
- 8 views
Charlie, all I would say is I think there are many flavors of YEC. I for one hold to the first part of what you just said, the Universe has the appearance of being old. So, every tool used to measure the age of the Earth will read that it is old, but I ‘know’ that it really isn’t that old. On the other hand, I don’t place much stock in the tools since it seems the scientists are always coming out with a new age of the universe every few years.
I believe there was someone on SI at one point that was espousing the idea that things, like light, moved exponentially faster at creation, and have since slowed down. If that were true, then the tools are definitely wrong and the Universe is only a few thousand years old.
I am sure there are other views, and I am positive there are those who do just what you said, espouse a YE, yet say the data gathered should read in the thousands.
I believe there was someone on SI at one point that was espousing the idea that things, like light, moved exponentially faster at creation, and have since slowed down. If that were true, then the tools are definitely wrong and the Universe is only a few thousand years old.
I am sure there are other views, and I am positive there are those who do just what you said, espouse a YE, yet say the data gathered should read in the thousands.
I’ll start with the scientific tools first, as I know more about that.
The problem with radiometric and carbon dating is that its based on assumptions. You can measure the rate of decay in an isotope. You can measure the ratio of the original isotope to the final. But you end up with two unknowns: original isotope ratio and years past. Any mathematician knows that with two unknowns and one equation, you can’t solve it. So scientist make assumptions on the original isotope ratio (i.e. starting point), then spit out years.
So, neither of those dating methods can be used to prove OE or YE, as the data is incomplete. Frankly, I’ve never heard of someone saying those dating methods prove YE, because the fallacy in the science is that is can’t prove any age.
Good resources here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/young-age-evidence
Answers in Genesis also gives good theological reasons for believing YE. Like the origins of sin, death and suffering…
While I believe the Adam was fully mature and created so. I’m not sure you can claim the Earth would be the same. The Earth doesn’t grow/age/develop in the same meaning as a man. Yes, God could have created it this way, but more likely scientist just make poor assumptions.
As for light speed… check out this verse: Jeremiah 51:15 and ask yourself: If God created the heavens, then stretched them out, how would that effect the end result of what we see? Stars that are millions of light years away, yet we can still see the light after only 4-6000 years? Maybe…
The problem with radiometric and carbon dating is that its based on assumptions. You can measure the rate of decay in an isotope. You can measure the ratio of the original isotope to the final. But you end up with two unknowns: original isotope ratio and years past. Any mathematician knows that with two unknowns and one equation, you can’t solve it. So scientist make assumptions on the original isotope ratio (i.e. starting point), then spit out years.
So, neither of those dating methods can be used to prove OE or YE, as the data is incomplete. Frankly, I’ve never heard of someone saying those dating methods prove YE, because the fallacy in the science is that is can’t prove any age.
Good resources here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/young-age-evidence
Answers in Genesis also gives good theological reasons for believing YE. Like the origins of sin, death and suffering…
While I believe the Adam was fully mature and created so. I’m not sure you can claim the Earth would be the same. The Earth doesn’t grow/age/develop in the same meaning as a man. Yes, God could have created it this way, but more likely scientist just make poor assumptions.
As for light speed… check out this verse: Jeremiah 51:15 and ask yourself: If God created the heavens, then stretched them out, how would that effect the end result of what we see? Stars that are millions of light years away, yet we can still see the light after only 4-6000 years? Maybe…
[Charlie] Further, wouldn’t that actually eliminate the whole idea of YE science, since there shouldn’t be any empirical data that confirms a young age?There is empirical evidence of a young earth. Again, check out the link to Answers in Genesis. Look for age of earth based on Moon’s distance from Earth, Salinity of the Oceans, Helium, some others I forget. There are some interesting things that happen and continue to happen on the Earth that could not have continued for millions and millions of years. Most of them if their rate of change has been constant (assumption) and taking for worst case scenario (i.e. oceans had 0% salt at creation), the earth could only be 50,000-100,000 years old. And those are worst case scenarios…
I am wondering how would someone who is a Christian and bases his beliefs on the Bible and yet believes in the “old earth hypotheses’ deal with verses like Rom 1:20 and Luke 11:50? In the first passage, Paul states quite clearly that “men” were observing the attributes of God from the “beginning of creation” and in the second, Jesus places Abel at a time “from the foundation (katabole) of the world”. Katabole, as far as I can tell, is used everytime in the NT to refer to the the very beginning of the earth, or BEFORE. Can anybody help?
jt
jt
JT
[Daniel] Charlie, all I would say is I think there are many flavors of YEC. I for one hold to the first part of what you just said, the Universe has the appearance of being old. So, every tool used to measure the age of the Earth will read that it is old, but I ‘know’ that it really isn’t that old. On the other hand, I don’t place much stock in the tools since it seems the scientists are always coming out with a new age of the universe every few years.In his book STAR LIGHT AND TIME, D. Russell Humphries, (1994) ( see ICR) offers the interesting theory that millions of years could have lapsed in time while ony 6 days passed on earth. That would explain so much. He posits a finite universe with edges. (I might add that only God Himself is infinite). The gravitational pull of supposed black holes, e.g, might account for the slow down of time in many places of the universe, just to mention one possibility. He encourages more creationist work in the area of cosmology.
I believe there was someone on SI at one point that was espousing the idea that things, like light, moved exponentially faster at creation, and have since slowed down. If that were true, then the tools are definitely wrong and the Universe is only a few thousand years old.
I am sure there are other views, and I am positive there are those who do just what you said, espouse a YE, yet say the data gathered should read in the thousands.
Discussion