# Young Earth science



## CharlieJ

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.


----------



## EricP

Though I'm not a YE guy, given the variability and seeming sample and observer biases of many archeological age dating methods, I think it is very reasonable to question the validity and accuracy of measurement methods, particularly when they are the foundation of evolutionist arguments (a good debater knows that the person who establishes the grounds of a discussion often wins the argument). That being said, of course God is perfectly able to set carbon isotope ratios and etc the way He wants, as I'm sure the YE folks know. And yet, if a YE advocate is trying to discuss creation with almost anyone, he will have to have some sort of answer for the age dating question, particularly if he is trying to get a book published. While YE advocates would be more than willing to accept your "just...[a]... biblical assertion" comment, assuming they believe in the inerrancy of Scripture (and of course their high view of Scripture would lend great power to that "assertion"), I think part of the crux of their question is just what that word "empirical" means when discussing the age of the universe as seen by the eyes of, and figured in the minds of fallible, fallen men. Though I'm no expert, I would have no problem discovering through direct revelation that God made the universe yesterday--omnipotent is as omnipotent does, as Mrs. Gump used to say. He gave us brains to figure things out, and though we do pretty well with general revelation (as God allows us), we are finite to the end, even the smartest among us.


----------



## au5t1n

Charlie, there are fossils down to a certain level in the ground, and the earth above that point must have come after creation; therefore the YEC (such as myself) would expect it to be young. However, below a certain level, where no fossils are present, there is no reason to assume that ground wasn't there at creation. The reason for contesting the accuracy of modern dating methods is because they are dating levels of earth that contain fossils. YEC scientists are attempting to prove (and they do so rather well, In my humble opinion) that the earth where the lowest fossils are found is not millions of years old.


----------



## biggandyy

Charlie, you are making the assumption that God set the age of the universe at 15 billion years and started it from that point. We know from Scripture that Adam was formed as an adult male. We do not know at what age God preset the universe, if it was preset at all.

However, let's ask the question, what if God had made Adam as an infant? If he were the first man who would be there to care for him, nurture him, feed him, teach him. It makes sense that God would create man and beast as adults. Did He not create the beasts to be fruitful (reproduce after their kind) in the Garden?

Now for the universe, if God started creation with a big bang and allowed the swirling gases to coalesce into planetary systems we have a problem with the text of Scripture, not just in day and night designations but with the order of creation itself.

Also keep in mind that YE Creationists don't want to disprove radiometric dating because it would prove their YE position (although probably a few believe this). Radiometric dating is flawed at its core and needs to be abandoned as a part of scientific theory. YE gains nothing from knocking out another leg of the OE stool. But science does gain a modicum of respect back, especially in light of the utter failure of so called "peer reviewed science" in the Global Warming hoax.


----------



## au5t1n

For the record no one wants to disprove that radiometric dating really works if applied correctly. The point that creation scientists like to make is that using radiometric dating requires knowledge about the history of the thing you are dating, and when scientists apply uniformitarian assumptions while dating rocks and such, it is inevitable that they will get results in the millions. They must assume that none of the decayed substance has been added or taken away, and that none of the original substance has been supplemented or removed either.


----------



## jayce475

biggandyy said:


> Charlie, you are making the assumption that God set the age of the universe at 15 billion years and started it from that point. We know from Scripture that Adam was formed as an adult male. We do not know at what age God preset the universe, if it was preset at all.
> 
> However, let's ask the question, what if God had made Adam as an infant? If he were the first man who would be there to care for him, nurture him, feed him, teach him. It makes sense that God would create man and beast as adults. Did He not create the beasts to be fruitful (reproduce after their kind) in the Garden?
> 
> Now for the universe, if God started creation with a big bang and allowed the swirling gases to coalesce into planetary systems we have a problem with the text of Scripture, not just in day and night designations but with the order of creation itself.
> 
> Also keep in mind that YE Creationists don't want to disprove radiometric dating because it would prove their YE position (although probably a few believe this). Radiometric dating is flawed at its core and needs to be abandoned as a part of scientific theory. YE gains nothing from knocking out another leg of the OE stool. But science does gain a modicum of respect back, especially in light of the utter failure of so called "peer reviewed science" in the Global Warming hoax.


----------



## biggandyy

austinww said:


> For the record no one wants to disprove that radiometric dating really works if applied correctly. The point that creation scientists like to make is that using radiometric dating requires knowledge about the history of the thing you are dating, and when scientists apply uniformitarian assumptions while dating rocks and such, it is inevitable that they will get results in the millions. They must assume that none of the decayed substance has been added or taken away, and that none of the original substance has been supplemented or removed either.


 
I agree. C14 dating is reliable because it can be error checked with other natural processes. I find it interesting that C14 is present in diamonds thought to be millions if not billions of years old. There are arguments floating about that certain radioactive (but unobserved) processes can create the C14 in diamonds but this exposes the rest of the uniformitarian dogma supporting long term dating to the arguments being made to explain C14 in diamonds.


----------



## Bern

Perhaps this seems a little too simplistic, but just because God creates something fully formed, that doesn't mean it has to be created "with age" does it?
It is our dating methods that lead us to believe something is a certain age, not the object in question. Just because rock has layers, we assume the layers must be a way of calculating the age of the rock. Not necessarily so.... events like the flood can cause those kind of formations. As for Adam... I think it really is a simple as this: God created a fully formed, fully thinking, reasoning adult (because to create a child wouldn't have worked) and put him in a fully functional fully grown world. End of. 

The whole earth age question has only arisen in the last couple of hundred years because of the theory of evolution, before this people didn't question it. Reconciling science and the bible is a good thing, and I have respect for the guys that do it, and use it as an evangelistic tool into the bargain, but trying to make our beliefs fit in with every current scientific theory is not wise In my humble opinion.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

A much used example by YE scientists is the examination of the rock layers formed by Mount Saint Helens. When dating was done on the site of the eruption layers laid down months prior they were dating themselves to be millions of years old.


----------



## biggandyy

Also from Mt. St. Helens rocks of known age (minerals had just crystallized within 20 years going back to the eruption) come back dating into the millions of years old. That is quite a low F-score


----------



## LawrenceU

Much of the 'scientific' dating used today has within it one or two fallacies:

1. It assumes a closed universe. This is not Biblical.
2. It is circular in reasoning. eg. Dating of sedimentary layers by embedded fossils. Fossils are dated by the sediment bed in which they are found. All of this is based upon the geological column replete with fossils, which has never been observed as posited, fabricated by Hutton and then more fully fleshed out by Lyell, who had a tremendous impact upon Darwin.


----------



## ericfromcowtown

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> A much used example by YE scientists is the examination of the rock layers formed by Mount Saint Helens. When dating was done on the site of the eruption layers laid down months prior they were dating themselves to be millions of years old.



Mainstream geologists have exposed the YE radiometric dating at Mount Saint Helens as flawed from start to finish. The incorrect radiometric method was employed and the sample was sorted to include older xenoliths (much older rock brought to the surface) within the lava, which further skewed the data. 

One flawed paper doesn't destroy YE creationism, but continuing to use it as evidence after its many errors have been exposed will appear suspicious to your critics.


Creation Science Rebuttals, Dacite Dating


----------



## JBaldwin

Bern, you make a good point. 

I have, after years of arguing over the age of the earth with my husband, given up on trying to prove or disprove the age of the earth. There is no way that we can accurately give an age of the earth, because of the curse and the flood. We can't possibly know how the curse and the flood affected how old or young the earth appears. The scriptures teach that God created the heavens and the earth in six days, and it appears from the geneologies that it can't be much older than 6000 to 10,000 years old. 

As I see it, some people argue the age of the earth because 1), they are trying to fit the Bible into today's scientific thinking or 2), they refuse to believe the Biblical account, because they don't want to put their faith in God.


----------



## biggandyy

ericfromcowtown said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> A much used example by YE scientists is the examination of the rock layers formed by Mount Saint Helens. When dating was done on the site of the eruption layers laid down months prior they were dating themselves to be millions of years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mainstream geologists have exposed the YE radiometric dating at Mount Saint Helens as flawed from start to finish. The incorrect radiometric method was employed and the sample was sorted to include older xenoliths (much older rock brought to the surface) within the lava, which further skewed the data.
> 
> One flawed paper doesn't destroy YE creationism, but continuing to use it as evidence after its many errors have been exposed will appear suspicious to your critics.
> 
> 
> Creation Science Rebuttals, Dacite Dating
Click to expand...

 
There has been more than one sample send for testing over the years. I stand by my rejection of radiometric dating if not on those grounds then on personal experience in getting samples tested during my graduate years (many years ago).


----------



## TimV

Tree rings would be the only evidence that could convince me that the Bible is speaking metaphorically in Genesis. And that would have to be clear cut, with examples that completely overlapped collected from the same area, and be from the same species. And if there's any clear cut example out there, I'm unaware of it. Here's a supposedly ancient termite in amber that I have, and it sure doesn't look any different than the one's I see today:


----------



## earl40

Your observations are well founded. I also agree that for God to create a universe that appears to men as being old would suggest that God deceived. So far as Adam is concerned I have no problem with God creating Him "full grown". So what if Adam made and ate all his birthday cake for his first birthday.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

ericfromcowtown said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> A much used example by YE scientists is the examination of the rock layers formed by Mount Saint Helens. When dating was done on the site of the eruption layers laid down months prior they were dating themselves to be millions of years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mainstream geologists have exposed the YE radiometric dating at Mount Saint Helens as flawed from start to finish. The incorrect radiometric method was employed and the sample was sorted to include older xenoliths (much older rock brought to the surface) within the lava, which further skewed the data.
> 
> *One flawed paper doesn't destroy YE creationism, but continuing to use it as evidence after its many errors have been exposed will appear suspicious to your critics*.
> 
> 
> Creation Science Rebuttals, Dacite Dating
Click to expand...

 
I agree. One of the major problems I have with many YECers (and much of the material produced by organizations like Answers in Genesis) is their clinging to outdated concepts and supposed "flaws" that undermine the OEC view. Most of their claims are laughable at best. The best scientific data indicates the earth is very old (my view), or was created with the appearance of real age. Regardless, the YECers should try to base their arguments on legitimate scientific data (so long as it jives with Scripture) rather than easily disproven anachronisms.


----------



## TimV

> the YECers should try to base their arguments on legitimate scientific data (so long as it jives with Scripture) rather than easily disproven anachronisms.



Or conspiracy theories, or childish rhetoric. I personally avoid dipsy fundamentalist baptist type young earth "scientists". They often just make the rest of us look dumb.


----------



## au5t1n

ColdSilverMoon said:


> I agree. One of the major problems I have with many YECers (and much of the material produced by organizations like Answers in Genesis) is their clinging to outdated concepts and supposed "flaws" that undermine the OEC view. Most of their claims are laughable at best. The best scientific data indicates the earth is very old (my view), or was created with the appearance of real age. Regardless, the YECers should try to base their arguments on legitimate scientific data (so long as it jives with Scripture) rather than easily disproven anachronisms.


 
You assert that young-earth organizations such as Answers in Genesis cling to outdated concepts and make laughable claims. Would you care to give an example or two for us?

---------- Post added at 05:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------




TimV said:


> the YECers should try to base their arguments on legitimate scientific data (so long as it jives with Scripture) rather than easily disproven anachronisms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or conspiracy theories, or childish rhetoric. I personally avoid dipsy fundamentalist baptist type young earth "scientists". They often just make the rest of us look dumb.
Click to expand...

 
This reminds me of a site I stumpled upon once that had a picture of the earth with a big ring of water surrounding it - supposedly a canopy that caused the Flood in Genesis.


----------



## JBaldwin

Scientic fraud is common sadly on both sides of the argument. One of my science college professors was YEC, but had spent a good chunk of his earlier years working at geological sites along side evolutionary scientists. He showed us his pictures and film clips, and he showed us what finally made the textbooks. It was amazing to see what was left out, because it didn't back up the evolutionary viewpoint. While this doesn't prove a young earth or an old one, it does prove that scientists just love to pick and choose evidence. I wouldn't be surprised if some creationists (sadly) do the same thing.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

austinww said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. One of the major problems I have with many YECers (and much of the material produced by organizations like Answers in Genesis) is their clinging to outdated concepts and supposed "flaws" that undermine the OEC view. Most of their claims are laughable at best. The best scientific data indicates the earth is very old (my view), or was created with the appearance of real age. Regardless, the YECers should try to base their arguments on legitimate scientific data (so long as it jives with Scripture) rather than easily disproven anachronisms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You assert that young-earth organizations such as Answers in Genesis cling to outdated concepts and make laughable claims. Would you care to give an example or two for us?
Click to expand...



Here's just one example I found after about 5 minutes of perusing their website:

Natural selection

To compare sifting buttons of different sizes through a sieve to natural selection is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin. Natural selection doesn't mandate that entire species are wiped out or survive (as AIG claims), but that individuals survive based on certain genetic characteristics. Those genetic characteristics are then passed on to offspring, and what was a minority gene now becomes a majority gene in a population, ultimately driving change in the population. This may be a pre-existing gene, but doesn't have to be (as AIG claims). An individual may have a new gene that offers some sort of survival advantage - it can be pre-existing or new. Furthermore, claiming that all bacterial resistance comes from pre-existing genes is flat wrong. Numerous studies have shown that both bacterial and viral antibiotic resistance come through mutations. I could go into more detail, but just from that brief summary it should be obvious that the article is filled with frankly absurd information. 

That doesn't mean that all of AIG is wrong, but it does mean one should be very careful when reading their material. They have an agenda and a bias - something to keep in mind...


----------



## au5t1n

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Furthermore, claiming that all bacterial resistance comes from pre-existing genes is flat wrong. Numerous studies have shown that both bacterial and viral antibiotic resistance come through mutations.



Forgive me, but is a mutation not something which occurs on pre-existing genetic material? It changes the material, but it does not introduce brand new material. It can copy, delete, or otherwise distort already present genetic material; wouldn't you agree? I think that is what they were getting at.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

austinww said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, claiming that all bacterial resistance comes from pre-existing genes is flat wrong. Numerous studies have shown that both bacterial and viral antibiotic resistance come through mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me, but is a mutation not something which occurs on pre-existing genetic material? It changes the material, but it does not introduce brand new material. It can copy, delete, or otherwise distort already present genetic material; wouldn't you agree? I think that is what they were getting at.
Click to expand...

 
Maybe, but evolutionists would agree - copied, deleted, or distorted genes can fundamentally change the protein coded. Regardless, multiple statements in that essay are simply wrong.


----------



## Kevin

My problem is that they depend so much on the dubious theories of some crack-pot 7th Day Adventist non-scientist.




TimV said:


> the YECers should try to base their arguments on legitimate scientific data (so long as it jives with Scripture) rather than easily disproven anachronisms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or conspiracy theories, or childish rhetoric. I personally avoid dipsy fundamentalist baptist type young earth "scientists". They often just make the rest of us look dumb.
Click to expand...


----------



## JennyG

> That doesn't mean that all of AIG is wrong, but it does mean one should be very careful when reading their material. They have an agenda and a bias - something to keep in mind...


whereas, of course, evolutionists.....!


----------



## JennyG

Thinking on about this...I can recall, before I was converted, imagining that if I could find a perfectly neutral, purely factual account of this as well as other issues (like the history of the Reformation for eg), then I would be in a strong enough position to exercise my own judgment.

Of course, there's no such account and never can be. Where history is concerned, every writer begins from a position either of atheism/agnosticism, which will put one very definite slant on events; or from some kind of Christianity, in which case there will be all the difference in the world between the story told by the RC, and that of the Protestant. 

It's just the same with origins science. The materialist starts in effect from Lewontin's famous dictum "...we cannot let a Divine foot in the door..", and that will determine, or at the very least colour, all his conclusions, even when he has the same data as the Creation scientist.
The Bible-believing Christian must start from God's word. If anyone believes that the beginning of Genesis allows for different understandings, the same cannot be said of "...by Man came death".
....and the Christian who wants to hold on to the Gospel and _also_ old Earth biology seems to me to be in a logically unenviable position.


----------



## itsreed

ColdSilverMoon said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean that all of AIG is wrong, but it does mean one should be very careful when reading their material. They have an agenda and a bias - something to keep in mind...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mason: it is faulty to bring in the issue of bias into your criticism. This is because bias is an essential charateristic of all science because of science is carried out by scientists, of whom none can be unbiased.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

itsreed said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean that all of AIG is wrong, but it does mean one should be very careful when reading their material. They have an agenda and a bias - something to keep in mind...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mason: it is faulty to bring in the issue of bias into your criticism. This is because bias is an essential charateristic of all science because of science is carried out by scientists, of whom none can be unbiased.
Click to expand...

 
I agree that scientists can't be completely unbiased, but I don't think it's wrong to bring it up when discussing AIG. The sole purpose of AIG is to buttress Creationism from a scientific standpoint while refuting Darwinian Evolutionary claims. Thus all of their material must be read in that light. It would be like a drug company publishing its own research that demonstrates the merits of a new drug - you would be at least a little incredulous reading their work. I think its wise to read sites like AIG with the same degree of incredulity. 

Of course, the same is true for the anti-Creation sites and literature as well...


----------



## JennyG

> I think its wise to read sites like AIG with the same degree of incredulity.
> 
> Of course, the same is true for the anti-Creation sites and literature as well...


put these together, and that's another way of saying what Reed said!


----------



## mvdm

This issue is heating up in Canadian Reformed and United Reformed circles. 

Advancing old earth arguments:

Reformed Academic: Response to Clarion coming

Response blog from the skeptic side:

bylogos


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

JennyG said:


> I think its wise to read sites like AIG with the same degree of incredulity.
> 
> Of course, the same is true for the anti-Creation sites and literature as well...
> 
> 
> 
> put these together, and that's another way of saying what Reed said!
Click to expand...

 
No, Reed said it was wrong to bring up bias when critiquing AIG. I'm saying it's not wrong because all scientists are guilty of it, including well-meaning Christian scientists. Some people assume that everything on AIG is correct simply because it is pro-Creationism. I'm saying that's not the case at all...


----------



## JennyG

This is getting confusing. Reed said


> ....bias is an essential charateristic of all science because of science is carried out by scientists, of whom none can be unbiased.


So he concluded that _no_ scientists should be looked to for value-free results; and you're stressing that that must apply to AiG just as much, which is fair enough.
It can't apply _more_, or _especially_, to them though - so it's back to the drawing-board, with neither scientific camp able to provide values-neutral testimony. Better just stick to the word of God!


----------



## Jon Peters

JennyG said:


> This is getting confusing. Reed said
> 
> 
> 
> ....bias is an essential charateristic of all science because of science is carried out by scientists, of whom none can be unbiased.
> 
> 
> 
> So he concluded that _no_ scientists should be looked to for value-free results; and you're stressing that that must apply to AiG just as much, which is fair enough.
> It can't apply _more_, or _especially_, to them though - so it's back to the drawing-board, with neither scientific camp able to provide values-neutral testimony. Better just stick to the word of God!
Click to expand...

 
It's important to not only understand that there is bias, but the nature of that bias.


----------



## JennyG

I'm biased in favour of the bias which assumes God's hand in the Cosmos, and biased against the bias which bases everything on his presumed non-existence


----------



## Jon Peters

JennyG said:


> I'm biased in favour of the bias which assumes God's hand in the Cosmos, and biased against the bias which bases everything on his presumed non-existence


 
As an old earth creationist, I have the same bias. But platitudes are not all that helpful.


----------



## TimV

> Some people assume that everything on AIG is correct simply because it is pro-Creationism.



I'm a young earther, i.e I take Genesis literally. But I see Mason's critique as very important, since looking dumb doesn't help my cause, but quite the reverse.


----------



## JennyG

Jon Peters said:


> JennyG said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm biased in favour of the bias which assumes God's hand in the Cosmos, and biased against the bias which bases everything on his presumed non-existence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As an old earth creationist, I have the same bias. But platitudes are not all that helpful.
Click to expand...

sorry! 
But although I framed it semi-facetiously, I meant it seriously, and I'm not so sure yet that it is a platitude.
If you know that every scientist, being human, has his own peculiar bias, then you know enough.
You know that makes it a straight choice between two implacably opposed presuppositions.

As for looking dumb, Tim, I do take your point, but for a YEC where I live, in the Scottish sticks, that's past praying for.
People I know who know I'm a young-earther, or suspect it (I always have stickers on my car in the hope of sparking debate) will tiptoe round me and go to any lengths to avoid the subject. With true British delicacy, they're far too polite to mention my obviously mentally-challenged state!


----------



## johnson

*looking foolish*

There has been mentioned several times that creation sceintists make us look foolish to the world. Since when do Christians not look foolish to the world. I know there are many who call themselves Christians who are indeed foolish, but I am referring to those of us who believe and defend what is said in scripture. I Cor 2:14 says "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." I don't think we will get very far if we base our theology on not looking foolish to the world, we need to rely on the wisdom of God. It is God who caused Genesis to be written.


----------



## JennyG

johnson said:


> There has been mentioned several times that creation sceintists make us look foolish to the world. Since when do Christians not look foolish to the world. I know there are many who call themselves Christians who are indeed foolish, but I am referring to those of us who believe and defend what is said in scripture. I Cor 2:14 says "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." I don't think we will get very far if we base our theology on not looking foolish to the world, we need to rely on the wisdom of God. It is God who caused Genesis to be written.


Hi Dawn. That's what I was meaning. I agree!


----------

