Evidence for and against young earth creationism.

[JerryL]

Evidence for a young Earth: "I think the Bible says so".

Evidence for an old Earth: Everything that measures anything more than about 5000 years old. From erosion and radiometric dating to the fossil record and the distance to stars.

 

[Sonofason]

Evidence for a young Earth: "I think the Bible says so".

Evidence for an old Earth: Everything that measures anything more than about 5000 years old. From erosion and radiometric dating to the fossil record and the distance to stars.

You call this statement evidence?

I understand your vast understanding of evidence by your statement of evidence above, but did you bother to take any writing courses in school, or did you skip that part?

 

[JerryL]

You call this statement evidence?

No. Statements aren't evidence of anything (except possibly themselves). I call that statement "Bob". Bob and I have a very special relationship.

I understand your vast understanding of evidence by your statement of evidence above, but did you bother to take any writing courses in school, or did you skip that part?

Why do you want to know? Trying to decide what to do once you start 9th grade?

 

[Sonofason]

No. Statements aren't evidence of anything (except possibly themselves).

Why do you want to know? Trying to decide what to do once you start 9th grade?

Well, I have completed 16 grades of schooling. And I'm still learning a great deal today. In fact, I'm quite certain, I know more about just about everything than you do.

 

[JerryL]

Well, I have completed 16 grades of schooling. And I'm still learning a great deal today. In fact, I'm quite certain, I know more about just about everything than you do.

And that certainty is why you almost certainly don't.

You think that "evidence" is a good name for a sentence. I mean... how are you going to whisper that lying in bed at night? Way too many syllables.

 

[JerryL]

I'm quite certain, I know more about just about everything than you do.

What do I have in my pockets?

 

[Sonofason]

The Bible does not even suggest a young earth. So your first statement of the OP is false. You are trying to make believers seem stupid, when

And that certainty is why you almost certainly don't.

You think that "evidence" is a good name for a sentence. I mean... how are you going to whisper that lying in bed at night? Way too many syllables.

You said, "Evidence for a young Earth: "I think the Bible says so"."
This is simply untrue. The Bible makes no statement whatsoever regarding the age of the earth.

 

[JerryL]

The Bible does not even suggest a young earth.

You may believe that. Most YECs I am aware of, including the major names in the belief and movement, disagree.

And since my statement started with "I think"; it's the belief rather than the reality (whatever that is) that matters in testing the veracity of my statement.

For example: Henry Morris, the founder of YEC, believed that the Earth was young because he believed that the Bible offered a literal timeline from the creation of the universe "on the first day: God said" to events whose time could be established within the historical record (Paul, for example).

You do realize that is how YECs come up with the age of the Earth in the first place, right? By counting ages at generation change in (mostly) Genesis?

So your first statement of the OP is false. You are trying to make believers seem stupid,

Not I: though you are doing an excellent job of it.

when You said, "Evidence for a young Earth: "I think the Bible says so"."
This is simply untrue. The Bible makes no statement whatsoever regarding the age of the earth.

I have this feeling that you may be equivocating "say".

 

[Sonofason]

You may believe that. Most YECs I am aware of, including the major names in the belief and movement, disagree.

And since my statement started with "I think"; it's the belief rather than the reality (whatever that is) that matters in testing the veracity of my statement.

For example: Henry Morris, the founder of YEC, believed that the Earth was young because he believed that the Bible offered a literal timeline from the creation of the universe "on the first day: God said" to events whose time could be established within the historical record (Paul, for example).

You do realize that is how YECs come up with the age of the Earth in the first place, right? By counting ages at generation change in (mostly) Genesis?


Not I: though you are doing an excellent job of it.


I have this feeling that you may be equivocating "say".

It may very well be true that the age of human beings is only about 6,000 years, but in no way is anyone capable of assigning a time frame to the 6 "days" of creation.
What is a day?
day:
- a period of opportunity or prominence
- an era of existence or influence

 

[Desert Snake]

It may very well be true that the age of human beings is only about 6,000 years, but in no way is anyone capable of assigning a time frame to the 6 "days" of creation.
What is a day?
day:
- a period of opportunity or prominence
- an era of existence or influence

I think that it is somewhat arbitrary. I subscribe to YEC because there is no indication that something else makes more sense. There is no need for some extensive creation timeline, so I abandon the idea.

 

[Sonofason]

I think that it is somewhat arbitrary. I subscribe to YEC because there is no indication that something else makes more sense. There is no need for some extensive creation timeline, so I abandon the idea.

I actually do not subscribe to either position. I lack the information to know for sure. I see lots of people saying there is lots of evidence for an old earth, but I must honestly say, I haven't seen the evidence. I'm just saying either could be true, and because of that, the age of the earth means absolutely nothing to me. I don't care about the age of the earth. It proves nothing anyhow.

 

[Desert Snake]

I actually do not subscribe to either position. I lack the information to know for sure. I see lots of people saying there is lots of evidence for an old earth, but I must honestly say, I haven't seen the evidence. I'm just saying either could be true, and because of that, the age of the earth means absolutely nothing to me. I don't care about the age of the earth. It proves nothing anyhow.

This is true, however what you are considering is sort of abstract anyway, /as you actually are inferring. Hence, it may not matter, but since it doesn't matter, then YEC works as an approximation for practical purposes.

 

[JerryL]

It may very well be true that the age of human beings is only about 6,000 years, but in no way is anyone capable of assigning a time frame to the 6 "days" of creation.
What is a day?
day:
- a period of opportunity or prominence
- an era of existence or influence

YEC interprets this as sundown-to-sundown and treats it as a 24-hour period of time.

The Hebrew word used in Genesis is remarkably similar to English "day", in that it can indeed be used to describe the period when the sun is up, a 24-hour period, or an arbitrary period "in his day".

In order to derive a Biblical age, however, a time must be assigned.

 

[Sonofason]

YEC interprets this as sundown-to-sundown and treats it as a 24-hour period of time.

The Hebrew word used in Genesis is remarkably similar to English "day", in that it can indeed be used to describe the period when the sun is up, a 24-hour period, or an arbitrary period "in his day".

In order to derive a Biblical age, however, a time must be assigned.

There is no purpose to ascribe a definitive meaning for the word day, as it accomplishes nothing. God stepping in to do work on an ongoing creation is anything but arbitrary.

 

[JerryL]

There is no purpose to ascribe a definitive meaning for the word day, as it accomplishes nothing.

I assume the purpose would be things like "to understand the text" and "to determine how old the earth is".

Or should I assume that there's no purpose to ascribe a definitive meaning for your post, as it accomplished nothing?

 

[Reggie Miller]

YEC interprets this as sundown-to-sundown and treats it as a 24-hour period of time.

The Hebrew word used in Genesis is remarkably similar to English "day", in that it can indeed be used to describe the period when the sun is up, a 24-hour period, or an arbitrary period "in his day".

In order to derive a Biblical age, however, a time must be assigned.

Never mind that:

1. The dating methods used by scientists cannot be verified to be correct.
2. The assumptions concerning the half-lives of elements in dating cannot be verified - for at least a few million years, anyway.
3. There is no proof for or against radiation affecting the elements in the rocks scientists are dating. This could throw off the dates as incorrect by millions or even billions of years.
4. Too many assumptions are made by scientists about the age of the Earth.

 

[JerryL]

1. The dating methods used by scientists cannot be verified to be correct.
2. The assumptions concerning the half-lives of elements in dating cannot be verified - for at least a few million years, anyway.
3. There is no proof for or against radiation affecting the elements in the rocks scientists are dating. This could throw off the dates as incorrect by millions or even billions of years.
4. Too many assumptions are made by scientists about the age of the Earth.

There are a large number of methods used to validate the various dating methods. Checking them against one another is one of the most obvious.
Checking them against known values is another.

For example: We calibrate C14 measurements using items of known age. Trees you've aged by ring count, or artifacts with established age and history.
You can calibrate young ice-core samples against C14 (or, again, known events like Krakatoa).

The latter, for example, lets you validate the assumptions regarding ice stratification (works like tree rings). Then you measure 800,000 years of ice layers (by counting the proverbial rings).

You've already long-since exceeded YEC's numbers without breaking a sweat.
(try the middle of this page for a couple examples: Reasons To Believe : Can We Verify Carbon Dating’s Reliability?)

But no. You cannot prove that it wasn't an omnipotent being deliberately laying out false evidence.

 

[Reggie Miller]

There are a large number of methods used to validate the various dating methods. Checking them against one another is one of the most obvious.
Checking them against known values is another.

For example: We calibrate C14 measurements using items of known age. Trees you've aged by ring count, or artifacts with established age and history.
You can calibrate young ice-core samples against C14 (or, again, known events like Krakatoa).

The latter, for example, lets you validate the assumptions regarding ice stratification (works like tree rings). Then you measure 800,000 years of ice layers (by counting the proverbial rings).

You've already long-since exceeded YEC's numbers without breaking a sweat.
(try the middle of this page for a couple examples: Reasons To Believe : Can We Verify Carbon Dating’s Reliability?)

But no. You cannot prove that it wasn't an omnipotent being deliberately laying out false evidence.

Well, for all your claims to "science" you can't prove a dog gone thing. So much for your science.

 

[JerryL]

Well, for all your claims to "science" you can't prove a dog gone thing. So much for your science.

You can't prove that. So much for your argument.

 

[Reggie Miller]

You can't prove that. So much for your argument.

Haha. That was almost funny.