Young earth

[Subduction Zone]

That conflicts with the accounts given in Genesis though.


Day 1: Light
Day 2: The "dome" over the Earth.
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: The sun, moon, and stars

Most Christians are willing to reinterpret the Bible to some degree. You see very very few Flat Earth geocentric YEC's today.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I know that there are OLD Earth Creationists, but they are not YEC. What does the "Y" stand for?

I don't think you understand what I said... I said some young Earth creationists believe in an old universe.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I don't think you understand what I said... I said some young Earth creationists believe in an old universe.

As discussed above, that contradicts Genesis. Aren't creationists trying to resolve a theory that agrees with Genesis? Isn't disagreement with Genesis their big problem with the scientific model?

 

[Stevicus]

I think age is really just a number. Young or old is just a matter of perspective. Even if the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, it doesn't look a day over 3 billion.

So, anyone who thinks the Earth is "young," go right ahead. The Earth IS young!

 

[Kenny]

Actually I don't think there is much evidence that Einstein was attacked or thought ridiculous. I suspect this is largely a romantic myth, perpetuated by people who want their own alternative ideas to be given credit - a variant on the "They laughed at Galileo" gambit.

In fact, Einstein's annus mirabilis papers were published in 1905, when he was 26, and already by 1908 he was recognised as a leading physicist and appointed lecturer at Bern, being promoted to associate professor a year later and becoming a full professor* at Prague in 1911. That is a pretty rapid acceptance by the science community, by any standards.

*In Europe a professor is not just any old academic teacher but the head of a faculty or a prestigious guest academic.

I am not familiar with the veracity of the site but you might take a look.
100 Authors against Einstein: A Look in the Rearview Mirror | Skeptical Inquirer

 

[Kenny]

No it was not. Einstein's ideas were very rapidly accepted.
Young earth is currently as irrational as flat earth theory given the evidence. So no, it does not have the status something that is controversial but possible.

#45

I have read other articles on the matter

 

[Wildswanderer]

And besides, in Genesis, it says that God created the Earth before the moon and stars.

From the perspective of someone standing on the surface of the Earth, the stars appear on day four. Does that mean the material that composed the stars and planets didn't already exist?

From a timeless perspective that material may have been much older, and God may have created man at a precise time because that's when the light from those objects would reach him.
It's not as simple as saying that it had to be one or the other.

 

[Wildswanderer]

As discussed above, that contradicts Genesis. Aren't creationists trying to resolve a theory that agrees with Genesis? Isn't disagreement with Genesis their big problem with the scientific model?

It doesn't contradict Genesis necessarily. For illustration, how much time passes between the 1st and 2nd verses of the Bible?

 

[vulcanlogician]

It doesn't contradict Genesis necessarily. For illustration, how much time passes between the 1st and 2nd verses of the Bible?

Depends who you ask, I suppose. Some take it to be part of the first day. And I'm not super critical of theological interpretations that accept modern science, by playing around with what the word "day" means and stuff like that. But YEC rarely does that. At least not the AIG approach.

My main point is about day 4. That's where the contradiction lies. Day 3 we get plants on earth. On day 4 we get all the stars.

 

[Audie]

It changes all the time.
New study suggests the universe is billions of years younger than we thought

A "study suggests" doesn't change anything

 

[Audie]

It doesn't contradict Genesis necessarily. For illustration, how much time passes between the 1st and 2nd verses of the Bible?

Sure, read the Bible to say whatever.
Everyone else does. why not

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are there any non-religious scientists who are working on hypotheses or theories regarding a possible young earth?

None that I've heard if.

but isn't "plausible" also in the eyes of the beholder? Consensus thought Einsteins position at one time were not "plausible" and even "ridiculous" and was demeaned and attacked by many - but science corrected itself.

This is why science demands data and replicating results. Einsteins Greatest Blunder, as it's known, is an error of human thinking and nothing of a problem for science. But he accepted facts and later on we would get a chance to test his predictions and discover they are remarkably accurate.

 

[exchemist]

I am not familiar with the veracity of the site but you might take a look.
100 Authors against Einstein: A Look in the Rearview Mirror | Skeptical Inquirer

Oh I see. Yes, there were some refuseniks, as there always are, mostly non-entities with various axes to grind. There are no great names in the list. The people that counted, and most of the physics establishment who listened to them, accepted his work very rapidly, as shown by the speed with which he was appointed to academic positions.

And don't forget he got his Nobel prize in 1921, just 16 years after he burst onto the scene in 1905.

 

[sayak83]

I am not familiar with the veracity of the site but you might take a look.
100 Authors against Einstein: A Look in the Rearview Mirror | Skeptical Inquirer

Actually such books represented a very minority group of hold outs against what was by then a widespread scientific consensus. Look at the history for details
History of special relativity - Wikipedia

 

[Mock Turtle]

It changes all the time.
New study suggests the universe is billions of years younger than we thought

You did read this bit I assume:

Jee and outside experts had big caveats for her number. She used only two gravitational lenses, which were all that were available, and so her margin of error is so large that it's possible the universe could be older than calculated, not dramatically younger. Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb, who wasn't part of the study, said it an interesting and unique way to calculate the universe's expansion rate, but the large error margins limits its effectiveness until more information can be gathered.

 

[metis]

Is there any non-religious reason to come to the conclusion that the earth is young?

0

 

[metis]

I've never really delved deep into how they came up with "thousands of years"... I think you have prompted me to look into how those scientists came to their conclusions.

It was Bishop Usher [sp?] well over 100 years ago who derived at this by adding all the dates of how long people live per what's in Torah. Many people accepted this a face value.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You did read this bit I assume:

Jee and outside experts had big caveats for her number. She used only two gravitational lenses, which were all that were available, and so her margin of error is so large that it's possible the universe could be older than calculated, not dramatically younger. Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb, who wasn't part of the study, said it an interesting and unique way to calculate the universe's expansion rate, but the large error margins limits its effectiveness until more information can be gathered.

That's even more unsure.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Is there any non-religious reason to assume that the Earth is old?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Sure, read the Bible to say whatever.
Everyone else does. why not

Not an answer.
When is " the beginning"?
If time as we know it didn't exist, all we have is a before ( when the earth was still formless) and an " after" once days and time starts.
Time has no meaning for a timeless Being.