Young Earth

[angellous_evangellous]

YIKES. I wrote a paper in grad school concerning Genesis 1-5 and I used scores of sources (critical commentaries, articles, etc) and none of them posited an arugment for young earth. Therefore, I concluded that the young earth theory was no longer widely held. However, I am near a fundamentalist Christian seminary, one of the largest in the world, and I have found that it is being taught and held by many students and professors.

I have some questions that I would like to debate:

First, is there any proof for the young earth theory?

Second, is there any other group - religious or otherwise - that is pushing this or a similar theory. If it is isolated to Christianity, then it is most likely not true. I don't know of any other group with this on their agenda.

In my personal view, I think that it is a scientific question, and should be answered by science alone. Our science should not have theological aims: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11359&highlight=theological+questions

More on my view is here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11393&highlight=theological+questions

 

[Dinogrrl]

I honestly have yet to come into contact with any 'proof' for the young-earth that even I (a freshman in college, and even earlier, in eighth grade) couldn't debunk.

Someone here on the forums (wish I could remember who--I want to put this in my quote list, so if you know who it was, tell me so I can properly credit! ) said "Why would God create a whole set of natural laws that He Himself would not follow?" Which basically sums up why I believe in an old earth. :}

 

[No*s]

Nope there isn't Nate. Even II know that (of course at Wayland, that wouldn't be saying much among the religion majors and probably less at your local seminary)

 

[Mister Emu]

I would talk to Barry Setterfield( www.setterfield.org ). He says he bases his belief in YEC on scientific data.

 

[Dinogrrl]

...it looks like he's an OEC. Using the age-day theory. Unless I'm totally reading this wrong. Could you point me to a specific page or phrase where he's talking about YEC?

 

[Mister Emu]

...it looks like he's an OEC. Using the age-day theory. Unless I'm totally reading this wrong. Could you point me to a specific page or phrase where he's talking about YEC?

No, I have never really searched his website. His(and possibly himself as well) wife posts at www.freejesus.net as Tuppence I believe.

Well actually here http://www.setterfield.org/combinedtimeline.htm He puts forth that the world is 5792 years old

 

[Dinogrrl]

Huh. And then on the 'geology time' whatever page, he's connecting geological times with Bible ages.


Okay, I'm confused.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I am asking for scientific evidence rather than interpretive evidence - just to clarify.

Thanks for the help.

 

[Mister Emu]

Could you explain interpretive as opposed to scientific evidence, sorry, but it seems that some scientific evidence would be interpretive.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Could you explain interpretive as opposed to scientific evidence, sorry, but it seems that some scientific evidence would be interpretive.

Quite right. Scientific evidence needs to be interpreted. I mean interpreting the book of Genesis to formulate a young earth theory is not proof for the theory.

Biblical interpretation is a science, but I want biological, palentological, physical proof.

 

[Mister Emu]

I mean interpreting the book of Genesis to formulate a young earth theory is not proof for the theory.

From what I have read his theory isn't based on Genesis. His main arguement is C-decay I believe.

 

[Arlanbb]

The Main Problem With Berry Setterfield Info is ~ He thinks there was a real creation about 5792 years ago and a biblical deluge sometime in the past, which no archaeologist has ever found one bit of evidence for. Also Berry has no answer for the 52 Hawaiian island that has been formed during the last 27 million years in the Pacific. I started a thread here on them not to long ago that you can go to for more informtion. arlan

 

[4troof]

If anyone could come up with any kind of proof of macro evolution, I would change to the old earth theory. There has never been any evidence of one species (or kind) changing into another species. Why does everyone think micro=macro?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why does everyone think micro=macro?

Superior intelligence?

 

[fantome profane]

If anyone could come up with any kind of proof of macro evolution, I would change to the old earth theory. There has never been any evidence of one species (or kind) changing into another species. Why does everyone think micro=macro?

You never will find any evidence for macro-evolution, not as long as you keep your eyes tightly closed and your fingers in your ears. But if you ever decide to actually open your eyes you might find articles such as this: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If anyone could come up with any kind of proof of macro evolution, I would change to the old earth theory. There has never been any evidence of one species (or kind) changing into another species.

There is plenty of evidence. There are even species that exist right now where you can see speciation stretched out over distance instead of time. We call them ring species: each population along the "ring" can mate with its neighbors, but by the time the ring joins back up with itself, the change has been so great that the two populations can no longer interbreed, which, by the standard definition of the term, makes them different species.

Why does everyone think micro=macro?

Because there is no such thing as a "micro/macro" distinction in evolution.

But, just to play along for a moment, please provide a precise definition for a "kind". Where does this grouping fit in the normal taxonomic ranking system? Is it smaller than a genus? Larger? Larger than a family?

Once you've done that, please explain the mechanism that limits the variation and speciation of a population to its original "kind" (however you define it).

 

[4troof]

You never will find any evidence for macro-evolution, not as long as you keep your eyes tightly closed and your fingers in your ears. But if you ever decide to actually open your eyes you might find articles such as this: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

Boy, how did I know I would be sent to a evolutionists page? Once again, they offer no evidence at all on a kind of species changing to another species.
You knew this was coming...
The Truth About Macroevolution

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Once again, they offer no evidence at all on a kind of species changing to another species.

Ahem...

There are even species that exist right now where you can see speciation stretched out over distance instead of time. We call them ring species: each population along the "ring" can mate with its neighbors, but by the time the ring joins back up with itself, the change has been so great that the two populations can no longer interbreed, which, by the standard definition of the term, makes them different species.

 

[Dunemeister]

Folks, can we please get back to the point? The issue doesn't concern biological evolution. The issue concerns the age of the earth and/or universe. I personally would like to know if there is evidence out there for a young earth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Folks, can we please get back to the point? The issue doesn't concern biological evolution. The issue concerns the age of the earth and/or universe. I personally would like to know if there is evidence out there for a young earth.

There's the Biblical account... and... um... I think that's it.

OTOH, there's scads of evidence out there against a young Earth, as was discussed in this thread.