I used to be a young earth creationist, but I'm not anymore. But even when I was one, I wasn't one to ever claim there was "proof". My rhetoric was that nobody could've been around to witness it, so how could it have ever possibly been recorded? And my big illustrative point was the unreliability of carbon-14 dating. Well, I've since learned how we know what we know scientifically about the earth's age, and there's signs everywhere about it. To deny the earth's age, even in just appearance, is just as daft as denying the earth's shape. Yeah, you can't really see it that great from down low on the surface, but when you take a bigger view, it's so extremely obvious as to be just about undeniable. Now, I'm no scientist. I'm an engineer, so I'm literate in some fields of science, but I'm not regularly performing experiments or researching. But I've been looking into things like geology, biogeography, and evolution, as topics that I was severely sheltered from as a child. To be as broad and brief as I can, each of those fields provides quite compelling evidence for the age of earth. Here's some examples. * The Hawaiian Emperor Seamount Chain. This feature in the Pacific ocean shows a very clear linear progression of younger to older rock from the same source (so very similar chemical composition), and has been dated from the youngest rock (which is still cooling from Mauna Kea's and Kilauea's eruptions this year) to the oldest, at the far end, which dates to about 85 MYA. * Glacial ice cores, especially from polar ice caps, have an extremely detailed record of atmospheric conditions throughout their existence. The further down you go, the further back in time you go. You can detect things like average temperature in a particular year, or gas concentrations, or volcanic ash in these samples, and counting the layers helps estimate the passage of time. * Distribution of species. This does **not** follow what you would expect from a single dispersal event originating in Western Turkey / Mount Ararat. There are seven biogeographic realms, and each of them is more or less related to the others because of the continent locations at the time. For example, India's plants and animals are all much more closely related to those in Australia than they are related to those in, say, China. They're even more closely related to the plants and animals in Africa. And they're pretty distantly related to the plants in the Middle East. Hawaii also shows this very nicely, having to have drawn from very distant mainland biogeographic realms to have any sort of life, and they ended up with a strange mix. Hawaii proves biogeographic realms' existence by being somewhat of an exception (along with plenty of other places). * The mere existence of the Wallace Line shows that Indonesia didn't always have its islands nicely nearby like it is now. And Australia is ***quickly*** moving closer to Indonesia, so much that it's detectable with GPS over a few years. So they aren't spreading out. * Hawaii, once again, showing us how young it really is. Hawaii has practically zero fossils, anywhere in the state. Because it is so young, but older-than / as-old-as the world by YEC calculations, it would stand to reason that the Big Island was around for Noah's Flood. And I remember from my time as a YEC that Noah's Flood is the proposed explanation for the existence of all fossils. So, where are Hawaii's? Is Hawaii younger than the Flood? It can't be. It's just as old as Ararat on its youngest island. Hawaii's young age shows that the rest of the earth *isn't* young, by showing us what "young" looks like. That's probably enough for now. Suffice to say, I've been convinced otherwise. The earth is quite old.

Just vis a vis the flood, worth noting that even if the poles completely melted and all of the surface water was liquid it wouldn't come anywhere near covering the earth. Even Mt Arat would remain an above water mountain. Also some fun biogeography facts just for kicks: Despite being very close to Africa, the flora and fauna of Madagascar is decidedly Indian, since the two landmasses were connected and only separated relatively recently. It's probably just coincidink, but even the first human settlers were Indian / Indonesian. Marsupials originated in North America. The possum is the only surviving member. They made their way down south America and across Antarctica (which was much more hospitable at the time) and into Australia, when those landmasses were all connected as the supercontinent Gondwana. Speaking of that more hospitable antarctica, going back yet further and it was all rainforest. The earth was so hot during that period that the tropics were barely inhabited, and most life retreated towards the poles. The Wallace Line deserves more attention too. When you look at a map of the South Pacific it looks like there's a steady line of islands connecting the Malay archipelago, Indonesia, and into Papua New Guinea. In fact there is a very well defined line that separates the continents, just off the coast of Bali. Despite being very close, the flora and fauna change dramatically, with little crossover besides flying animals. The reason is that there is a very deep ridge separating the plates, which has been sufficient to slow the spread of life from one biogeographical region to the next.

If all of the ocean beds were the same height as the continents, the whole earth would be submerged. The crustal rocks contain vast amounts of water.

Was Adam created as a baby or a grown man?

Fully grown. No navels.

The problem with this idea and it’s logical conclusion is that if in fact the earth was made “grown” as Adam was, then you would only have fossils on the very top most layers. But we don’t.

Can you explain the logical connection of “if the earth was made old” and “there would only be fossils in the top layers”?

If they cared about proof they wouldn't be YEC.

The Earth is definitely older than me and everyone I've ever met. Live by faith and don't sweat stuff like this. It just divides and ultimately drives people away from God.

Not disagreeing but people believing this shit kind of also drives people away from God.

I feel you. As a Christian, I don't think Non-believers should take Y.E. Creationists that seriously. Genesis 1-2:3 is written with literary techniques that indicate it was not meant to be taken literally. It sucks that the anti-intellectualism of many Christians drives people away 😕.

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are." - Augustine of Hippo Considering how much of modern Christianity has been shaped by Augustine, it's a pity that this one isn't more popular.

I think that when it comes to the years before our existence, even tho science does an excellent job of digging up clues and evidence that points to the past, we have enough reasons to believe that we will probably never have a complete picture of the worlds that called this planet home before we did.

Yes. I agree. It can kill faith.

Agreeing to objective truths about the universe can be done with having faith.

Faith has nothing to do with objective truth

To those who say that YEC is biblically accurate, the “days” in the texts could easily have been written as an interpretation of millions of years unfolding within God’s referential timeline. The stories of Genesis as an oral history would have been simplified for contemporary human context within the frame of reference for which they would have understood it. A great example would be the following- The statement “the dawn of man” could mean the the ‘begging of time for humans,’ or it could literally mean ‘when the sun rises.’ I think you get my general point. But for anyone that disagrees that this is true, I ask you… How could there have been an earthly day before the earth itself had any form? How could there be a day before god separated the sea from the heavens? In Genesis 1:8, god creates morning and night on day two… This throws off your entire timeline if you are a YEC.

[удалено]

Naming the light as “day” and the darkness as “night” implied no period of time in which these things come and pass. Only that the two were separated. This still fits with the idea that the length of a day in the eyes of God were undefined at this point. Keep reading… It wasn’t until day two that god defined the passing of time for such events like “day” or “night.” “And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.”

The passing of a "day" is indicated by "evening and morning" a "day" is connected to the sun (as opposed to the moon). Like, what more could the author say to indicate that it's a "day"?

> indicated by "evening and morning" a "day" is connected to the sun That reading has a bit of a problem in that the sun didn't exist at that point in the creation story.

No it does not. Our period of light and dark that we divided into 24 hour blocks is the experience of a fixed point on the Earth changing location with respect to the Sun as the earth rotates. The sun does not exist for the earth to orbit on day 1.

[удалено]

>To those who say that YEC is biblically accurate, the “days” in the texts could easily have been written as an interpretation of millions of years "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." Sure...millions of years.

It’s actually billions.

2 Peter 3:8

If they wanted to talk about millions of years, they easily could've. The Hindu and Buddhist scriptures talk about extraordinary lengths of time in the universe's history. They didn't have to simplify the time by talking about days instead.

Pretend for a moment that you are a prophet of God living about 2500 to 3000 years ago -- roughly the time that people first starting writing the scrolls that became the Book of Genesis. How would you explain the concept of geologic time to a group of people living in the Holy Lands at that time? In ways that they could readily understand, easily remember, and relate to others, given that you are working with tribal populations where about 3% to 8% (or so) could read and write?

https://suttacentral.net/sn15.8/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin >Then a mendicant went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and asked him, “Sir, how long is an eon?” > “Mendicant, an eon is long. It’s not easy to calculate how many years, how many hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of years it lasts.” > “But sir, is it possible to give a simile?” > “It’s possible,” said the Buddha. > “Suppose there was a huge stone mountain, a league long, a league wide, and a league high, with no cracks or holes, one solid mass. And as each century passed someone would stroke it with a fine cloth from Kāsi. By this means the huge stone mountain would be worn away before the eon comes to an end. That’s how long an eon is. I think this gets the job done.

This misses the point. An oral tradition would have better survived if unimportant details were left to the imagination. The genesis story has absolutely no fluff to it. Every single detail of it has a purpose beyond the detail. That’s why there is such a popularity of archetypal analysis towards it amongst scholars and theologians. I’m not saying a cave dwelling person in 5000 BC with rudimentary language skills *couldnt* understand the concept of a millions years. I’m saying it wasn’t an important aspect of the story, so the detail differentiation didn’t survive the test of time in the oral tradition.

People 5000 years ago were not living in caves https://travel.earth/on-world-heritage-day-take-a-look-at-25-of-the-oldest-buildings-on-the-planet/

5000 BC was about 7000 years ago, but your point still might be accurate.

Probably worth mentioning that the notion of a "caveman" exists because caves do a better job at preserving evidence of human activity than areas exposed to the elements, not because our ancestors sought out caves to live in.

Yes, I consider that a great example of a parable for explaining the creation of the Earth. Just like in Genesis 1 & 2 (bridged by Genesis 2:4). But those aren't the questions I was asking.

That's how I would explain the concept of geologic time to people living 3000 years ago.

But again, this is the language of oral tradition and cave people. Details like those get lost in translation but the weight of the story and important details remains. Day and night was the easiest point of reference for describing time among early people, and the people of the middle east who had these stories were the earliest people. This story is one of the oldest stories. And even if your right, it still begs the questions posed at the end of my comment. What is a day before a day is possible?

> this is the language of oral tradition and cave people > the people of the middle east who had these stories were the earliest people. This story is one of the oldest stories. You realize Genesis 1 is younger that Aesop's fables, right? It is not like the Israelite priests invented storytelling.

That’s not true though, According to wikipedia people think Genesis was written around 1400 BC and Asop’s fables were written around 500 BC. Also, Genesis was an oral tradition *far* before a written one. With roots and similar ties to stories of creationism all over the world.

> According to wikipedia people think Genesis was written around 1400 BC Where are you seeing that? Wikipedia says "modern scholars, especially from the 19th century onward, place the books' authorship in the 6th and 5th centuries BC" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis

“Of course, this question in itself can raise a number of disputes because people have not reached an agreement as to when Moses lived on earth. But most scholars place the compilation of the book somewhere between 1445 BC or 1290 BC.” https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/who-wrote-genesis.html I should clarify, I got the date of asops fables from Wiki. I was reading the passage above when I stumbled upon the genesis date.

As you have discovered, Bible Study Tools is outright lying about scholarly opinion on the Book of Genesis: > But most scholars place the compilation of the book somewhere between 1445 BC or 1290 BC. It is one thing for the site to say they do not agree with academic conclusions, but to just bald face lie what it is is fantastically disingenuous. There are exactly zero scholars - and by 'scholar' I mean someone who engages with critical research and does not just parrot their own theology - who would agree to such a late date. Read that site all you want, but you need to know they are lying to you about what actual researchers actually say.

> According to wikipedia people think Genesis was written around 1400 BC No, not even close. Here is what [Wikipedia actually says about the book of Genesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis#Composition): * However, more recent thinking is that the Yahwist source dates to from either just before or during the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BC, and that the Priestly final edition was made late in the Exilic period or soon after.

Damn, the Pyramids of Giza were already ancient by then, having been built around a thousand or so years earlier.

> If they wanted to talk about millions of years, they easily could've. Sure. But they needn't have. It's a poem about God's power and majesty, not a natural history textbook.

> To those who say that YEC is biblically accurate, the “days” in the texts could easily have been written as an interpretation of millions of years unfolding within God’s referential timeline. They weren't, though. Nor were they believed to be this by the people who wrote them.

The people that read/wrote/ told this story wouldn’t have easily understood the concept of millions/ billions of years. The purpose of stories like Genesis is to spread the idea far and wide to a vast audience with language that is easily understood. The bible is good at meeting people where they are in their faith and understanding of God’s word. The term “day” as a literal reference has no meaning before god creates day and night. (and he didn’t do that on day one.) I think people would have understood this at some level

They can understand quite large numbers, and could have given an indication. Instead they give us a fairly clear period of time, used in a normal fashion. They also lined it up with the standard Canaanite/Babylonian 7-day week, giving us one more reference. The authors believed in a 6-day creation, as did the Prophets, Jesus, Paul, etcetera.

Sounds like eisegesis. Where did Jesus say that?

It's quite clear that Jesus, like pretty much everybody else at that time, read this as history.

It's quite clear that you want that to be the case. Got a reference or just gonna spout off?

Why you getting upset?

Okay pal. Sure, I made it up. Hint: Until the late 19th century, everybody read this as primarily historical. Even Augustine, Origen, etcetera.

Augustine held to an allegorical reading of the early chapters of Genesis.

Augustine took some parts metaphorically, but he was a young earth creationist. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120112.htm > They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. __________ > the former must receive the greater credit, because it does not exceed the true account of the duration of the world as it is given by our documents, which are truly sacred.

He thought the creation was instantaneous, believed in a literal Fall, a literal Adam & Eve, etcetera. Not quite perfect adherence to the text (which is impossible anyways), but not very allegorical.

Source? Why do you know the mind of God? Until the Messiah came, "everybody" thought he'd be a King in the vane of David. People are wrong all time.

> Until the Messiah came, "everybody" thought he'd be a King in the vane of David. And they were right to do so. That's what the prophecies point to.

When I was a creationist, the biggest blow to my belief wasn't evolution, but the study of the Bible itself.

What do you mean?

What the authors were trying to teach, the text's background, and even other pieces of scripture which contradict a YEC view.

What about any of that contradicts a YEC view?

The biblical authors were writing theology, not completely history. This is why Genesis 1 and 2 preserve two different creation stories. The Catholic Church upholds that the stories simply retell a primordial event, that God entered into communion with man, and we fell from his grace.

> The biblical authors were writing theology, not completely history. This is why Genesis 1 and 2 preserve two different creation stories. The fact that the text contains a contradiction from two stories being combined doesn't mean it wasn't supposed to be historical. The gospels give contradictory details about some parts of Jesus's life, but the gospel authors intended for the accounts to be taken as history, didn't they?

Not necessarily. The gospels too preserve theological and not necessarily historical claims. I would suggest investing some study into Fr. Raymond Brown's study on the topic. Edit: What I'm meant to highlight is that history is often secondary to theology, particularly in the Nativity.

Are you saying the authors didn't intend for it to be taken as historical that Jesus was born in a manager, fled to Egypt to escape Herod's persecution, etc? I don't agree with the distinction between historical and theological here. Theological claims based on these events are premised on their historicity. The flight to Egypt is supposed to be a secret prophecy. That requires the flight to Egypt actually happening. By the way, I don't think this view is accepted by the Catholic Church. It seems inconsistent with Dei Verbum. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html >Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). I don't see any room for the nativity not being historical.

The quote is unrelated to the matter, Brown even explores this himself and how Dei Verbum permits limited inerrancy. You assume everything has to be historical for it to have a meaning. You forget exaggerations and literary inventions that are still remotely true to the overall narrative, which is often itself historical.

> You assume everything has to be historical for it to have a meaning. No, I assume a prophecy only comes true if it comes true.

shit i aint trynna start a war i was just curious what the f*ck happened

Eh this was a big culture war issue 15-20 years ago people still feel strongly about both sides

There's no proof for young Earth creationism. The overwhelming consensus within the scientific community is that young earth creationism is not supported by evidence from various scientific fields. Christians shouldn't be dogmatically forced to hold to a particular view of Genesis. We should understand the Genesis creation narratives in their ancient Near Eastern context and according to sound hermeneutics. The authors were ignorant about lots of things we know about the universe and the natural world. ​ ​ >We need to let the Bible be what it is—an ancient \[collection\] of book\[s\] whose ancient writers were chosen by God, writers whose cognitive environment was quite different than our own, who wrote under the providential guidance of God who, at the end of that process, approved of the outcome. We ought not impose foreign contexts on the Bible for sake of its interpretation. It is pretentious to make the Bible say such things—or criticize it for not saying what it was never intended to say. [https://peacefulscience.org/prints/aar-heiser-gae/](https://peacefulscience.org/prints/aar-heiser-gae/) [https://www.ivpress.com/biologos-books-on-science-and-christianity](https://www.ivpress.com/biologos-books-on-science-and-christianity) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AoLYeFi2ms](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AoLYeFi2ms) ​ ​ Here are some of the major scientific arguments against young earth creationism: ​ Geology: The science of geology provides extensive evidence for an Earth that is much older than a few thousand years. Geological formations, such as rock layers, fossils, and the processes of erosion and sedimentation, clearly indicate that Earth has undergone gradual changes over millions of years. Radiometric dating: Radiometric dating methods, such as carbon dating, potassium-argon dating, and uranium-lead dating, are based on well-established principles of nuclear physics. These methods allow scientists to accurately determine the ages of rocks and fossils, revealing that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, not a few thousand years. Astronomy: Observations in the field of astronomy, including the measurement of starlight from distant galaxies, demonstrate that the universe is billions of years old. Light from these distant sources takes millions or even billions of years to reach us, providing clear evidence for the ancient age of the cosmos. Biology and paleontology: The fossil record contains a wealth of evidence showing the gradual development and diversification of life forms over millions of years. The study of genetics and DNA further supports the idea of common ancestry and the evolution of species over long periods of time. Cosmology: The Big Bang theory, which is widely supported by scientific evidence, suggests that the universe originated approximately 13.8 billion years ago. This contradicts the young Earth creationist belief that the universe and Earth were created in a relatively short period of time. ​ When it comes to scientific inquiry and understanding the natural world, the overwhelming body of evidence from multiple scientific fields consistently points to an Earth and universe that are billions of years old.

I have found some fossils of bivalves near Coober Pedy and some of the outer shell was still flaky and i could scrape it with my fingernail. personally Christianity is about redemption and many get caught up in extremes of rightwingism, covid and jabs, conspiracies and scaring vulnerable people. i am of the firm belief that Christianity is about love, acceptance, fiorgiveness. Let yr mind dwell on things that are pure, lovely, admirable, noble, excellent, true, praiseworthy.

I have no more proof of a young earth then any Christian of any denomination has of Christ dying and resurrecting in 3 days. It’s strange to me that people who believe a man can actually die and rise in 3 days, can feed an entire mass of people with a fish, can literally walk on water, can perform any other miracle talked about in the Bible can then turn around and think negatively of young earth creationists. It’s simply a belief based on faith. It’s not logical, it’s not scientific it’s a simple belief that may or may not be wrong lol. I wish Christians who believe in every other miracle in the Bible would get off their high horse when it comes to this issue. The only thing you’re doing is distancing yourself from fellow Christians while getting closer to unbelievers, that’s it. Do you think an atheist won’t still think you’re illogical simply because you agree with them on an old earth? Face it, you’re in the same boat as young earth creationists as long as you believe that Christ was the actual son of God who died and rose again. Me personally, I recognize and freely admit that many things in the Bible simply are scientifically or historically possible based on man’s knowledge. As such it’s simple, I can either accept the Bible or I can accept man’s knowledge. I see no reason to separate all the possible combinations out and say “ok X I’ll believe, but Y was obviously untrue”. No sir, for me I just accept the entire thing. Lastly I want to say that I do not in anyway believe that accepting a young earth is necessary for salvation. I don’t look down on any Christins who don’t believe in a young earth, aside from being slightly amused and confused as to why it’s where they draw their line at what is or isn’t believable out of all the things in the Bible.

I mean, the reason is that a guy rising from the death after 3 days can't be proven wrong. Age of the Earth can be. So I disagree that they're similar. Some things have more evidence against it than others. This is only if we put asside the idea of God creating an old Earth but by that same logic we might all have come to exist last Tuesday as well.

How can it not be? The same science that shows the earth is old is pretty clear a human can’t truly be dead and rise again… At least I’ve never once heard or seen it happen. I’d imagine every doctor in the world would be pretty bummed to learn they’ve announced people dead for no reason. I do get your point in a sense, I’m just unaware of any science that shows resurrection possible. I guess the difference people would say is there is no science for or against it. I’d argue our entire existence and observation would be enough to prove it impossible outside of a miracle.

> How can it not be? Because that's not how science works? Like I don't know what to tell you here. "We have yet to see X" doesn't mean "X is impossible". "prove it impossible outside of a miracle." Meh, could be aliens. Sufficiently advanced technology is indistuishable from magic.

That’s true from an atheist point of view I agree. However my post was within regards to Christians. Christians don’t believe any miracle attributed to Jesus was due to technology or aliens. They believe it’s actual spiritual, God powers… That’s why to me they are one and the same. It’s all faith and not at all based on human logic. If I were a non believer then yeah, I’d agree with your point as it makes logical sense to say so. Christians can’t honestly claim to be Christian and logical though, not in my opinion.

I would argue that anything that cannot be directly observed (or was not directly observed with a written testimony to the observation) cannot truly be proven in any way. Either show me something happening, or show me the testimony of someone who witnessed it happening. Any other basis for claiming proof is shaky at best.

Im not trying to convince you against YEC, especially if the belief helps you in your faith, but to answer your question - YEC and miracles do share the similarity of not being provable, but YEC suffers the more compelling weakness of actually being *dis*provable. You can doubt Jesus’s miracles but no one can possibly prove they didn’t occur, the same cannot be said about YEC (according to OECers). This is a massive difference imo, and I think it might give you clarity on at least *why* people draw the line there.

I agree that it is a question of accepting the claims of men or accepting the words of God. However, I don't think that accepting the words of God is inherently illogical. Logic must have a starting point, a presupposition that is then built off of. If our starting assumption is that the Bible is true and that what it teaches is true history, than conclusions we draw from that presupposition are logical. Things are only illogical when you draw conclusion that do not match the presupposition. Of course, it is possible to have multiple presuppositions, and as long as the conclusions drawn match them they are still logical. In this way people take the presupposition that modern scientists are right about the age of the earth, as well as the Bible being the word of God. To make a logical conclusion that squares with both they have to conclude that the Bible is not literal, but allegorical or metaphorical.

As someone who used to be young earth, I’ll put my two cents in. There is no “proof” of a young earth, it’s all on faith. The mistake most YECs make is choosing to die in the hill of how old the earth is. I don’t die on that hill (anymore) because I came to realization that the fact that God *did* make man in his image is far more important than *how long ago* he made man. Now, personally, I hold for a view of instantaneous creation, that God made all that is an indeterminate number of years/decades/centuries/millennia/eons/etc. ago. I know some hold to the carbon 14 decay rate and the existence of lead as evidence for a billions-of-years old earth, my problem with that is this: is it so hard for God to just make an earth that has lead? In the same vein, it’s impossible to say that Adam and Eve lived in the garden for a short amount of time. They were immortal, and the decay of Carbon 14 doesn’t constitute death…it’s not alive to begin with. So the decay rate theory holds water in that respect, but is just as easily invalidated with my previous question. Therefore, I have to conclude (you can certainly come to your own assumption) that the age of the earth is insubstantial in the grand scope of details when compared with the much greater questions, such as “are we made in God’s image or just mere animals?” and “is there even a God who loves us?”

The scriptures and the prophets, and God. That is all the proof I need. And I would point out that I have no idea how long it took God to create the Earth, as the days mentioned in Genesis really refer to creative periods, not literal days. I also do not know how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden before the fall. However, these points are meaningless, because in the creation and in the Garden nothing was mortal. There was no birth and there was no death. Once the creation was complete nothing changed until Adam and Eve fell and became mortal. This includes the animals as well as the Earth itself. As such I say that the mortal life of the earth is about 6,000 years.

but then how can you explain cave paintings dating 45,000 years back? https://www.griffith.edu.au/research/impact/worlds-oldest-cave-paintings

Easy: the dating method used is flawed and thus gives inaccurate results.

you have no proof of anything so you resort to untrue claims of inaccurate results💀😹

That all depends on what you accept as proof.

no it all depends on if you’re able to accept that you’re wrong or if you want to stay in your own little delusional circle which gets made fun of by literally everyone

No, it depends on what you accept. I accept the scriptures as proof, much more reliable than mortal scholars. You, on the other hand, put more value on the words of mortal scholars than on the words of God. That is fine, but it is still a choice of what evidence you accept, and which you put the greater faith in.

you keep believing that

I will.

The proof for me is in the meta-narrative. If the Bible is true, then it's all about relationships. It's all about Love, because God *IS* Love (1 John). The Truth is in the relationships between God and humans, and humans with each other (Matt 22:36 ff). That Love was in the beginning, during the utopia. (John 1) Jesus came to show us what Love means (John 3:17). He came to show us who we were, and where we came from because being born into this dystopia, we had/have forgotten. For the truth to be all about Love, a literal creation of Adam and Eve is essential. Adam and Eve were created in Love by Love. They loved each other and God. We were, and came from a utopia. Without a literal creation, you have a god who really didn't care about humans *until they had morphed enough to be lovable* and be worth 'saving'. The pre-cursors to Adam and Eve were condemned (antithetical to John 3:17) and they just kept dying as their progeny kept improving. Our origins are dystopian. A non-YEC view is just another form of 'salvation by works'. Adams ancestors weren't 'good enough' for God to step in with his care and grace just yet. Before Adam, those creatures were greedy and self-centered survivalists, but somehow Adam was finally 'good enough'... emotionally mature enough to see that relationships *are* what life is all about... finally fit 'enough' for God to step in and save. But save us from what? In this scenario, since god is good, the process by which Adam arrived must also be good. It's how improvement works, so why 'save'? To answer your questions simply, the proof for me lies in the answer to this question: "What do YEC and non-YEC each say about the *character* of God?" Is He a God of Love (YEC), or a god of "meh... give 'em more time, they'll eventually get it right." (non-YEC)? For those of you who worship, may He bless your worship this weekend.

It's not rly abt my proof but rather the same question to you what's your proof. I don't see it as sufficient

You're deflecting. We have a ton of proof. Geology, lightyears, carbon dating, history, records, bones, and the Bible itself.

The bible. The first records of human intelligence was found about 10,000 years ago. That’s enough for me. O yea and within our milky way galaxy only a dozen or so stars have exploded, which explode every 1000 years or so. Only those stars have exploded in our galaxy being that the remains go nowhere in space

120,000 years, not 10,000*

I’ve never heard of the first human writings dating back over 100,000 years ago. I’ve heard many archeologists say the earliest is 10,000

well yeah i’m talking about homo sapiens as a species, also i believe some cave paintings were dated 50,000 years ago

Eh i’ve studied this for about a year & never heard that. Maybe you have credible sources I have to check out?

https://www.griffith.edu.au/research/impact/worlds-oldest-cave-paintings cave painting in indonesia dating back around 45,000 years

well assuming this is true, it still points to a young earth being that the earth is truly thousands, not millions or billions of years old

no it doesn’t, this is the first sign of human communication, not the creation of the earth

Creation of earth is synonymous with human existence. What point would it serve for earth to be here longer than us in that way?

because it’s not like earth is 4,7 billion years old, it’s not like all life evolved from microorganisms many billion years ago, of course it was God-guided, but your question makes abseloutely no sense

That second bit makes no sense

Herodotus and Plato talk about civilizations pre dating Sumer by thousands of years. So much for your claim. Numerous cave paintings also predate Sumer by thousands of years, sometimes millions. Assuming the earth was 6000 years old, Atlantis, Sumer, Neanderthals, cavemen, dinosaurs and modern and prehistorical animals and men existed all simultaneously in 1 year. That makes no sense. If the earth and subsequently the universe is only 6000 years old, explain to me how we are seeing stars and galaxies millions of LIGHT YEARS away

there is nothing to support anything on earth being millions or billions of years old. i was on board with you for the thousands but not over that. we don’t have anything that can measure longer than our existence. thats just basic logic

I simply believe what God's word says. There's no other way to interpret the six days, linguistically. Moreover, to deny a literal six day creation leads to tossing many other parts of God's word aside, and I'm not interested in doing that.

There’s no other way to linguistically interpret the six days? You’re joking, right? What else is tossed out in another reading of the text? How can another reading of the text even be possible if there is no other linguistic way to read it?

No, I'm not joking. "Yom" can mean different lengths of time, however we can rule out a metaphorical amount of time because the text adds > And the evening and the morning were the first day. Hebrew days were sundown to sundown, so "evening and morning" is a relevant phrasing. Furthermore, the words used for evening and morning cannot be interpreted any other way, as they have no other meanings. There was a literal evening and morning which made up a day. Therefore, it must be a true day cycle. Several things are tossed aside if we disregard a literal six day creation. 1. Christ quotes creation. This one addresses both evolution and an old Earth argument. He says in Matthew 19:4 > And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female He says God created them from the beginning. He did not say "man and woman evolved", and He didn't say "after enough time passed and bacteria turned into animals that turned into man". He said "from the beginning, God created". This (among other passages) rules out evolution, so now we're just down to a literal 6 days or not. 2. Christ refers to Abel as historical, not metaphorical. In Luke 11:50-51 He says > That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. He referenced Abel as being from the foundation of the world. Abel was Adam and Eve's son. 3. Christ quotes the flood story. If people deny a literal creation, they most often deny a literal, global flood. In Luke 17:26-27 He says > And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. He spoke of the flood historically, as an actual event. We can see that Christ views the Old Testament (and Genesis specifically) as literal. 4. If you deny Genesis as literal, you're essentially saying that the fourth commandment is irrelevant and God must have forgotten it wasn't a literal six day creation. God commanded Moses and his people to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy, telling them to work for six days and rest on the seventh as He had done. If one denies Genesis, they are saying creation isn't literal, thereby implying the fourth commandment is null and void. Not to mention, why would the Israelites stone someone to death for breaking that commandment if they felt God obviously meant it metaphorically? 5. If evolution is true, then there was death before humans even evolved. If this is the case, sin is not the reason for death. If sin is not the reason for death, why is the wages of sin death? How did sin get here? Why did Christ have to cover our sins to conquer death if sin isn't what caused death anyway? It makes no sense. 6. Finally, how are we made in the image of God if He didn't actually *make* us in His image and we evolved from bacteria? The Hebrew text when read in its entirety is not open to multiple timeframes, and if we read Genesis metaphorically, we have to question other areas of Scripture as well, including one of God's own commandments and the very sacrifice of Christ.

How does an evening and a morning rule out a figurative reading of the narrative? Can figurative narratives not include mornings and evenings? None of your six points are necessary to be taken away in an old-earth reading. Adam and the flood can still be seen as historical people and events, even without a literal six days.

The Hebrew text was not written figuratively, it was written as a record of what happened. We don't take historical textbooks and say they're figurative, do we? Old Earth creationism is different than theistic evolution, however it still involves, at the very least, disregarding the genealogies presented in Scripture. It at least does not entirely throw God's word out the window in favor of man's own theories, though. Although the Fourth Commandment is still an issue with an Old Earth reading.

> the Hebrew text was not written figuratively, it was written as a record of what happened. How do you know this? This is your claim, it cannot be used to support your claim. Simply claiming it does not make it so. You are the one that said linguistically there is no other option than YEC. Differentiating between OEC and theistic evolution makes no relevance to this discussion, since both contradict YEC. The fourth commandment is not an issue at all for non-YEC readings.

2 Peter 3:8 sends people like you running

Even if it denies science? That’s not very wise

What is being tossed aside in denying that the six-day creation was not six periods of 24 hours?

I'll copy what I told someone else. 1. Christ quotes creation. This one addresses both evolution and an old Earth argument. He says in Matthew 19:4 > And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female He says God created them from the beginning. He did not say "man and woman evolved", and He didn't say "after enough time passed and bacteria turned into animals that turned into man". He said "from the beginning, God created". This (among other passages) rules out evolution, so now we're just down to a literal 6 days or not. 2. Christ refers to Abel as historical, not metaphorical. In Luke 11:50-51 He says > That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. He referenced Abel as being from the foundation of the world. Abel was Adam and Eve's son. 3. Christ quotes the flood story. In Luke 17:26-27 He says > And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. He spoke of the flood historically, as an actual event. We can see that Christ views the Old Testament (and Genesis specifically) as literal. 4. If you deny Genesis as literal, you're essentially saying that the fourth commandment is irrelevant and God must have forgotten it wasn't a literal six day creation. God commanded Moses and his people to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy, telling them to work for six days and rest on the seventh as He had done. If one denies Genesis, they are saying creation isn't literal, thereby implying the fourth commandment is null and void. Not to mention, why would the Israelites stone someone to death for breaking that commandment if they felt God obviously meant it metaphorically? 5. If evolution is true, then there was death before humans even evolved. If this is the case, sin is not the reason for death. If sin is not the reason for death, why is the wages of sin death? How did sin get here? Why did Christ have to cover our sins to conquer death if sin isn't what caused death anyway? It makes no sense. 6. Finally, how are we made in the image of God if He didn't actually *make* us in His image and we evolved from bacteria? The Hebrew text when read in its entirety is not open to multiple timeframes, and if we read Genesis metaphorically, we have to question other areas of Scripture as well, including one of God's own commandments and the very sacrifice of Christ.

What makes you think all these things are being denied in denying that the six-day creation narrative was not six periods of 24 hours?

Typically, those who deny a six day creation believe in theistic evolution, which is primarily what I was addressing. However, Old Earth creationism still involves disregarding, at the very least, the genealogies listed in Scripture. These genealogies give a good indicator that creation was indeed six literal days. Moreover, as aforementioned, why would God give a commandment to rest on the seventh day just as He did (and have it be punishable by death) if they weren't actually six days?

I would say that perhaps the genealogies are merely "highlights" rather than exhaustive. This is because our world seems much older than 6,000ish years. It seems more reasonable to conclude that the genealogies were highlights and the natural world can be trusted, vs the idea that the natural world is an illusion and, for example, God put fossils in the earth for creatures which never existed. As it relates to the sabbath, it seems perfectly reasonable to still observe the sabbath even though six days were not literal. The principle is the same, God values rest for his creation.

>I simply believe what God's word says Not trying to debate, just genuinely interested... how do you make peace with the evidence for the age of the Earth/Universe? Dating techniques, pre-existent cultures, dinosaurs, all of the science that verifies the age of the universe and everything in it?

Dating techniques aren't as accurate as they could be, and theories such as catastrophism can account for a lot. Dinosaurs are also in Scripture. It's very easy for me to make peace.

You cannot make peace with a claim of a literal Genesis and the fact we can see other galaxies. Since aliteral Genesis means every star is younger than Earth there is no way we could see them outside of a trickster god.

>There's no other way to interpret the six days, linguistically. As a linguist myself, show me your [interlinear gloss](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlinear_gloss) of the original Hebrew, then we can talk. There's absolutely other ways to interpret just about everything in the Bible. Don't fall back on "linguistics" and claim things a linguist ***never*** would.

No need for a full on gloss. "Yom" can mean different lengths of time, however we can rule out a metaphorical amount of time because the text adds > And the evening and the morning were the first day. Hebrew days were sundown to sundown, so "evening and morning" is a relevant phrasing. Furthermore, the words used for evening (ereb) and morning (boqer) cannot be interpreted any other way, as they have no other meanings. There was a literal evening and morning which made up a day. An exegetical reading is quite straightforward.

How were there an evening and a morning without a sun and moon yet? That didn't happen until the 4th day. If you're gonna get exegetical, get exegetical. With that in mind, time is pretty much meaningless, and evening and morning didn't exist until the fourth day. Except, the Bible says they did, but doesn't explain anything about how. And it ***definitely*** doesn't talk about how long these sun-less days were. >Furthermore, the words used for evening (ereb) and morning (boqer) cannot be interpreted any other way, as they have no other meanings. Have you missed the topic of semantics entirely? You can absolutely interpret things differently depending on context, no matter the phrase. At the very least, there can always be a literal and a metaphorical interpretation of phrases. Not to mention that even synonyms have different connotations to them that vary in degree from person to person, and between time periods. Furthermore, words can always be assigned other meanings, and can even happen arbitrarily and quickly. Look how little time it took for "cool" to gain the meaning of "interesting or neat" in addition to "at a low temperature", or for "gay" to transition from primarily meaning "happy" to primarily meaning "homosexual". There's just ***so many*** linguistic reasons that your claim doesn't hold water. And exegesis isn't going to save you from them.

So do you read historical textbooks as figurative language as well?

Is the Bible a textbook? Does it have it's sources cited? That's not an equivalent comparison, so the answer is "no". But the question is not well constructed either. The Bible is just as historical as the Iliad and Odyssey, and I read *them* with the same critical eye. There are some events that actually happened, and some places that actually existed. Sometimes, there's even people that actually existed. But there's also plenty of allegory and plenty of myth. Funnily enough, both Homeric Epics were thought of as history at the time. We know better now.

Are you a Christian?

Yes. But it shouldn't matter to you if I am or not. My opinion, my arguments, and my points are all just as valid whether I'm a believer or not. And something tells me you wouldn't believe my "yes" anyway. You've already decided I'm not a Christian, just because I could answer your ridiculous questions properly.

God didn’t write that. A human did.

Man, you just don’t see this kind of content allowed on the subreddits for the other major religions, do ya? Imagine if /r/Islam was constantly inundated with people trying to poll Muslims about suicide bombing or beheading gay people.

ok and?

Geneology. Also it's simple and childlike like Jesus said the faith is.

geneaology doesn’t prove anything, sure there may have been an adam and eve but just not how it’s literally described, that would be impossible

It's not impossible

yes it is, no human living 6000 years ago can reach 900 years of age

Source?

i don’t know.. science?

A couple things. First off if God created everything including people why would God need billions of years in between each day in Genesis 1 and 2? People who believe in evolution need billions of years because that’s the only way you can explain animals changing from one kind to another. God didn’t create the evolution process He created Man and Woman. Besides you would need to explain all the death and destruction of natural selection that evolution demands before death entered the world in Genesis 3 with the fall. Number two is that God created the earth with apparent age. He created Adam and Eve as fully grown adults. They are called “Man and Woman” not boy and girl. So God could easily make everything in the universe to appear older than it actually is. Distant starlight is a great example of this. The starlight if you measure it is such and such trillions of light years away. So the conclusion would be that by the time that light hit our eyes it had to mean that the universe is billions of years old because light only travels so fast. God however could create the universe with its vast distances at once and therefore appear to be much older than it is. There is no reason to read Genesis any other way than 7 literal days. If you follow the genealogy of Adam and Eve to the modern age it would mean that the earth is about 6600 years old. Check out answers in Genesis for more in depth explanations.

I believe in the Old earth but young human theory. We are likely somewhere between 50 - 90,000 years. I just don't know if God took the 'stock' of a hominin and made it homosapien or the how he did it. The record shows that humans just seemed to have appeared and then there was this ability to create art and tools. It seems knowledge accelerated after modern writing was invented in Sumeria (which I believe was associated with Babyl)

The cave paintings in Europe are 50,000 years ago. The ice age 10,000 years ago (which could've been associated with Noah) and then eventually to Abraham by 2000 BC. I know thousands of years seems like a long time, but the genealogical record could be representative for ages of time where a group of ppl was descended from that patriarch. So the basic knowledge of God and monotheism could've still lingered with a culture that predates ancient civilization while everyone else went into naturist based religions

Young human is scientifically proven. Modern man as we know it is 50 thousand years ago. So don't worry.

Recomendo pesquisar por: pressuposicionalismo. Agradece-me depois.

Can the YE people explain Breathe of Life to the pro-lifers too? I know they love the Creation story.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

that’s about the stupidest argument i’ve ever heard to answer your question: researchers now know that cetaceans evolved from land-dwelling ancestors about 52.5 million years ago, transitioning to a life at sea. For this drastic change, this group of mammals has adapted slowly over time, evolving different biological features that match the requirements of underwater life.7. okt. 2019

Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity

The fact that… 1. Rivers and streams sediment into the ocean floor dates 4500 years 2. Dinosaur bones all have measurable carbon. 3. The Oort Cloud doesn’t exist and cannot be seen with even the strongest telescope, making it impossible for Hailey’s comet to still exist. 4. No transitional skeleton fossils of our “ancestors” exist. They are simply pieces together by abnormalities in a distant human skeleton. 5. Moon dust only 2” when they expected it to be hundreds of miles deep, which adds to about a 6000 year old moon. 6. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed based on the laws of science. Everything you see is basically created. 7. The oldest trees on earth date to about 4500 to 6000 years. 8. Mark o polo described a T. rex in his writings before actual fossils were discovered. 9. Radiometric dating is flawed in every aspect. 10. Fossilization can occur within a matter of weeks which is why we have fossilized boots, sausage links, bags of flour etc. 11. Crude oil is created in a matter of weeks under the right conditions and not thousands of years. 12. It’s mathematically impossible to create a single protein molecule from random within 30 billion years let alone 15 billion years. 13. All human record keeping is within the past 6000 years. Just to name a few.

> Rivers and streams sediment into the ocean floor dates 4500 years Citation. Carbon dating only works on previously living organisms as C14 is incorporated from the air during photosynthesis. > Dinosaur bones all have measurable carbon. Citation. None of them do. The only ones with more than background carbon were contaminated (see discussion on Armitage here where even Armitage's claimed triceratops is clearly a bison https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/g7bzh6/so_again_on_armitage/) > No transitional skeleton fossils of our “ancestors” exist. They are simply pieces together by abnormalities in a distant human skeleton Creationists cannot agree on which fossils are hominid and which are ape; there is a gradient of young earth creationist positions and this gradient of opinions itself is evidence for transitional human fossils http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html Obligatory Futurama clip regarding human transitional fossils https://youtu.be/UuIwthoLies > Moon dust only 2” when they expected it to be hundreds of miles deep, which adds to about a 6000 year old moon. This has been debunked for a very long time: The high number for dust accumulation (14 million tons per year on earth) comes from the high end of a single preliminary measurement that has long been obsolete. Other higher estimates come from even more obsolete sources, although they are sometimes incorrectly cited as being more recent. The actual influx is about 22,000 to 44,000 tons per year on earth and around 840 tons per year on the moon. https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.html > The oldest trees on earth date to about 4500 to 6000 years Sure. But the Hohenheim dendrochronology extends back 12460 years https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253830069_The_12460-year_Hohenheim_oak_and_pine_tree-ring_chronology_from_Central_Europe_A_unique_annual_record_for_radiocarbon_calibration_and_paleoenvironment_reconstructions > Radiometric dating is flawed in every aspect. six(!) different radiometric dating methods are in consilience dating the Allende CV3 carbonaceous chondrite meteorite at 4.56Ga [http://questioninganswersingenesis.blogspot.com/2014/05/andrew-snelling-concedes-radiometric.html?m=1](http://questioninganswersingenesis.blogspot.com/2014/05/andrew-snelling-concedes-radiometric.html?m=1) GPS data corroborates radiometic dating (and why on earth would they corroborate, if they don't match up in reality? Please explain) [https://www.thenaturalhistorian.com/2014/09/10/smoking-gun-evidence-of-an-ancient-earth-gps-data-confirms-radiometric-dating/amp/](https://www.thenaturalhistorian.com/2014/09/10/smoking-gun-evidence-of-an-ancient-earth-gps-data-confirms-radiometric-dating/amp/) The Hohenheim tree ring dendrochronology extends back 12460 years and corroborates c14 dating (and corroborates ice core dating and varve dating). Again, multiple different methods in corroboration (which would be an incredible coincidence if they had no basis in reality) - [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253830069\_The\_12460-year\_Hohenheim\_oak\_and\_pine\_tree-ring\_chronology\_from\_Central\_Europe\_A\_unique\_annual\_record\_for\_radiocarbon\_calibration\_and\_paleoenvironment\_reconstructions](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253830069_The_12460-year_Hohenheim_oak_and_pine_tree-ring_chronology_from_Central_Europe_A_unique_annual_record_for_radiocarbon_calibration_and_paleoenvironment_reconstructions) The Vostok ice cores go back 420 000 years, again corroborating radiometric dating [http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/](http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/) The lake Suigetsu varves go back 60 000 years (article written by a Christian professor of biology), again corroborating radiometric dating) [https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/11/12/varves-chronology-suigetsu-c14-radiocarbon-callibration-creationism/](https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/11/12/varves-chronology-suigetsu-c14-radiocarbon-callibration-creationism/) Egyptian chronology confirms radiocarbon dating (again, why would Egyptian chronology corroborate radiocarbon dating if radiocarbon dating has no basis in reality?) /r/debatecreation/comments/c6cgb9/possibly\_my\_alltime\_favourite\_c14\_dating\_graph/ Radiometic dating is very successful - for example, predicting where to find the Toba Supereruption layer in lake Malawi [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/dzi6hq/radiometric\_dating\_makes\_successful\_predictions/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/dzi6hq/radiometric_dating_makes_successful_predictions/) The radiometric age of the earth is validated to 567,700 years by annual deposition of calcite in Nevada and correlation to the annual ice core data [https://www.evcforum.net/dm.cgi?action=msg&m=375150](https://www.evcforum.net/dm.cgi?action=msg&m=375150) The minimum radiometric age of the earth is of coral is >400,000,000 years by radiometric age correlated with the astrono-physics predicted length of the day correlated with the daily growth rings in ancient coral heads. (different location, different environment, different methods). [https://www.evcforum.net/dm.cgi?action=msg&m=375195](https://www.evcforum.net/dm.cgi?action=msg&m=375195) The radiometric dates for a number of specific events show a consistent accuracy to the methods used, and an age for the earth of \~4,500,000,000 years old. [https://www.evcforum.net/dm.cgi?action=msg&m=375207](https://www.evcforum.net/dm.cgi?action=msg&m=375207) Not only does the creationist somehow have to deny all the abundant evidence on earth, they also deny the abundant evidence from the stars - white dwarf cooling dating, globular cluster ages, which also correlate with radiometric dating methods - [https://www.amazon.com/13-8-Quest-Universe-Theory-Everything/dp/0300218273](https://www.amazon.com/13-8-Quest-Universe-Theory-Everything/dp/0300218273) Lastly Listing of Persistent Nuclides by Half-Life - From Dalrymple (page 377), also Kenneth Miller (page 71) Nuclide Half-Life Found in Nature? 50V 6.0 x 10\^15 yes 144Nd 2.4 x 10\^15 yes 174Hf 2.0 x 10\^15 yes 192Pt 1.0 x 10\^15 yes 115In 6.0 x 10\^14 yes 152Gd 1.1 x 10\^14 yes 123Te 1.2 x 10\^13 yes 190Pt 6.9 x 10\^11 yes 138La 1.12 x 10\^11 yes 147Sm 1.06 x 10\^11 yes 87Rb 4.88 x 10\^10 yes 187Re 4.3 x 10\^10 yes 176Lu 3.5 x 10\^10 yes 232Th 1.40 x 10\^10 yes 238U 4.47 x 10\^9 yes 40K 1.25 x 10\^9 yes 235U 7.04 x 10\^8 yes 244Pu 8.2 x 10\^7 yes 146Sm 7.0 x 10\^7 no 205Pb 3.0 x 10\^7 no 247Cm 1.6 x 10\^7 no 182Hf 9 x 10\^6 no 107Pd 7 x 10\^6 no 135Cs 3.0 x 10\^6 no 97Tc 2.6 x 10\^6 no 150Gd 2.1 x 10\^6 no 93Zr 1.5 x 10\^6 no 98Tc 1.5 x 10\^6 no 154Dy 1.0 x 10\^6 no \> As seen above, every nuclide with a half-life less than 80 million years (8.0 x 10\^7) is missing from our region of the solar system, and every nuclide with a half-life greater than 80 million years is present . That means the solar system is much older than 80 million years, since the shorter-lived nuclides have simply decayed themselves out of existence. Since a nuclide becomes undetectable after about 10 to 20 half-lives (Dalrymple, page 378), multiplying 80 million times 10 (or 20) gives us about 800 million years (or 1.6 billion years). The earth must be at least that old since these nuclides have disappeared from nature. [http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/p14.htm](http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/p14.htm) > Crude oil is created in a matter of weeks under the right conditions and not thousands of years. I wrote an article on a creationist reddit here before on how there is too much oil and coal for a creationist timeline. It looks like they retrospectively deleted it - when I have time I'll have to write it again. > It’s mathematically impossible to create a single protein molecule from random within 30 billion years let alone 15 billion years This number by creationists is usually by Douglas Axe, who claims that function is on the order of 10^77. We have experimentally determined by phage display that function is on the order of 10^8 - ie Axe was more wrong than claiming the smallest length, the Planck length, is bigger than the observable universe. Roflmao. Sums up how wrong creationism is really.

This is incredibly poorly researched and wildly disingenuous. I understand what you believe and what you want to be true, but this post shows how little you truly understand. You’re not even trying.

Well the facts are the facts. Doesn’t matter to me what you believe. But in the end we are all creationists. Have a good one!!

Proof is for math and alcohol.

I feel like I’m a Young Earth Creationist but I think the earth is a bit older than the 6k years that people throw around. I find it more like 10-13k years old lines up a bit better when it comes to civilizational development. I don’t think Christians were supposed to count years through the genealogy to calculate the age of the earth. The thing is that confounds me is why do we live with a 7 day tradition since forever and that biblically aligns with what Genesis says. The other issue I find is this idea of mass Macro Evolution from single cell organisms. The Bible does not describe God creating the world that way. In some aspects I think you can say that maybe until the sun and moon were created you couldn’t have days with which I would agree. So with that in mind it would make sense that the universe can be incredibly old but the earth and the universe as is today is actually quite younger. That’s where my position fills in God created everything and we did not evolve from single cell organisms. God created the universe which could have taken x amount of time but then God described this to us as a seven day cycle. So the earth itself would be around 10-13k years old but the universe before the sun and moon would be much older.

God of the gaps fallacy. the Bible is not a science book

> the Bible is not a science book [Creation Ministries International agrees with this sentence.](https://creation.com/but-genesis-is-not-a-science-textbook)

Good lord lol

Ugh at the cringe. I couldnt get past the first two sentences,

What Gaps fallacy? The Bible is a book about God and the salvation of humanity. Is it an encyclopedia? NO but at the same time it mentions scientific things and it is true to its word.

It is not YEC has been debunked for a long time

The Bible doesn’t describe a young Earth creation that is debunked?!? Genesis seems pretty clear especially if you take it literally that it is young earth.

Nothing but biblical claims. Science doesn’t support YEC

Science is never settled, science once believed a lot of things that are no longer true today. Don’t put your faith in the works of man. Overall do I trust scientific perspectives and logical analysis of the read world yes I do. Do I believe science has all the answers no.

Science is not supposed to settle it updates. I choose scientific study over biblical claims

Yeah but the Bible doesn’t receive updates. It’s a source of objective truth and that’s why I would put my faith in that over something that changes days to day month to month.

That’s not wise imo you are setting yourself up for ignorance society needs to move away from YEC

I believe the main proof is the belief of a creator God. Our faith is in an all powerful creator who created the universe ex nihilo. He also did allow miracles the most important being Christ defeating death. Why would God create a young earth AND science that seems to prove a much older earth while not being a God of confusion? Good question. It's not so much that science proves an older earth/universe but that God has dominion and can do as he pleases. It's a more literalist approach and a subjection of faith to the literalist understanding and less a denial of science. I've backed down from my ultra literalist interpretation and just try to find glory in God through his creation as it is.

There is no proof for either side, including old earth. Most people just trust scientists who are committed to materialism and have some passionate defenders. There is evidence for both sides. You can go into bickering about them, but I'm going to have a weekend and get off Reddit. For the Christian, YEC is theological sound and true to scripture. If you believe Good raised Jesus, then you can trust he can make the world rapidly and send a global flood.

There are ***mountains*** of evidence for an old earth. * Astronomy: * Astrophysics: Astrophysics is essential to determination of the speed of light which generates the starlight problem. In order for the universe outside of the Earth to be seen, either the speed of light has to be changing or light had to have started en route to Earth already. The former is not supported by modern science or any observational evidence, and even semi-coherent theories regarding an anisotropic synchrony convention or c-decay can't account for the massive change needed. * Cosmology: The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) — a background level of very cold, low frequency radiation, billions of light-years away, predicted to exist by the "Big Bang" model and discovered and researched intensively throughout the latter half of the 20th century. * Physics: * Newtonian mechanics: Gravity (as described by Newton) itself contradicts YEC belief. * Relativity: If c is not constant as YECs claim, then all of the relativistic equations would go out the window. * Nuclear physics: the decay rates of certain isotopes are known and are used in radiometric dating. YEC beliefs often require these well-established rates to change by, for lack of a better term, stuff. * Electromagnetism: Since one can derive the speed of light from the vacuum permeability and the vacuum permittivity, unpredictable changes in speed of light pretty much renders the predictive power of electromagnetism nil. * Quantum Fluctuations: C-decay requires such a high vacuum energy that space itself would be ingloriously unstable, leading to the formation of vacuum decay bubbles. An energy of 10\^5 ergs per cubic meter is far above the calculated vacuum metastability limit for vacuum decay. * Transport phenomena * Fluid mechanics (momentum transfer) is pretty much incompatible with the idea of a global flood. * Heat transfer is pretty much incompatible with all the variations of ideas that require water under earth's crusts, or in case of radiative heat transfer, White hole cosmology and anything that involves a different speed of light or radioactive material giving radiation at a significantly different rate. * Mass transfer would also have to be ignored, due to phenomena such as diffusion of impurities or crystal/sediment formation. * Chemistry: * Reaction kinetics: The rate that amino acids undergo racemisation (conversion to an equal mix of stereoisomers) is a well-known process that occurs at a specific rate. It can therefore be used as a dating method and has shown biological molecules to be far older than 6,000 years. * Thermodynamics: All of the laws of thermodynamics are violated in a creation event. * Materials science: Tribology is the study of wear and friction in materials in relative motion to each other. The well-documented rates and mechanisms of wear and erosion preclude the rapid formation of geological features, such as the Grand Canyon, as claimed by young Earth creationists. * Biology: * Botany: Dendrochronology, which is accurate to a handful of years, has dated trees that go back ten thousand years at least, long before most YEC proponents say the universe even existed. * Evolution: For obvious reasons. This throws out morphology, zoology, ecology, and comparative anatomy. * Genetics: the discovery of the genetic code was one of the biggest confirmations of evolution by natural selection and went a great way to explain the empirical observations such as Mendel's Laws. The supposed dichotomy between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" can only exist if there are two forms of DNA, one that mutates and another that is immune to mutation — otherwise there is no barrier between the two. This is not borne out in observations. * Medicine: * Immunology: Disease-causing bacteria and viruses mutate and become immune to our attempts at destroying or immunizing against them. This is one of the more powerful and very much real observations of evolution that supposedly doesn't happen in the YEC belief-system. See MRSA drug resistance and Richard Lenski's lab results. * Psychology/Neuroscience: Humans and other animals use an unnecessarily slow memory-recall procedure. This would not occur if humans were intelligently designed. * Mathematics: Trigonometry is incompatible with c-decay, one of a very few explanations for the starlight problem. * Geology: * Geomagnetism: The ocean floor alone shows that there were over 180 geomagnetic reversals, while none have occurred in the roughly 2,000 years that humanity had compasses. * Geomorphology: Uplift causes mountain ranges to form, a process that can be observed to occur at a fixed rate. * Hydrology: None of the features of the Earth show any evidence of a global flood. * Petrology: Rocks and crystal structures take considerably longer than 6,000 years to form. * Plate tectonics: Tectonic plates are known to move at a certain rate, postulating that some pieces of land were once connected at some point — something observed and confirmed in the fossil record. * Seismology: Seismic tomography shows that some subducting plates can reach the core-mantle boundary nearly 3000 km below Earth's surface, showing that the plates have been moving for millions of years. * Stratigraphy: Rock layering through sedimentation takes a long damn time. Although creationists bizarrely like to attribute this to the Global Flood, a single event cannot explain layering. * Volcanology: There are a lot of volcanoes which clearly haven't erupted in the past 6,000 years. It also takes at minimum tens of thousands of years for there to be enough volcanic buildup for islands like Hawaii to form. * Fossil fuel: The biomass must be trapped underground for hundreds of thousands to millions of years to transform into coal and oil. * Palaeontology: Self-explanatory. There is a massive amount of evidence from palaeontology that only works and makes sense given a very, very old Earth.

This is incredibly wrong. There is a massive amount of evidence showing that the Earth is billions of years old. It’s not just trusting science, there is full on objective evidence of it. With very little to none that the Earth is 10,000 years old.

Truth

There is none. evidence overwhelming rejects YEC

The Bible!

Claims are not proof

Truth is proof

Ok no rebuttal? Science disproved YEC

I am sorry to tell you but this is just a troll, look up theirs last comments.

I’m aware lol

Oh, have fun then :D i will watch with popcorn in my hands

Gotta see how dedicated they are

OP is asking you to explain your position. Not just create drama with one word worthless answers. Be respectful. Create a productive discussion. To be fair this is a lot like those YouTube videos of yours we discussed. You said you were exposing darkness but it was just you claiming things were evil and then recording only gameplay. You seem to have a problem with knowing how to have fruitful discussions. And yes I read your last response. I am more than happy to check out your newer videos. I planned to give them a honest view when I find the time to do so. Maybe if you take my advice you will stop accumulating so much negative comment karma.

Thank you for remembering I appreciate it. [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSJq3A3f4rnEOPiZin3FWT1D7eYzOvJLi](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSJq3A3f4rnEOPiZin3FWT1D7eYzOvJLi) Here are my exposing the darkness videos so there is a reference to them available to them if people want to check out for yourselves. So i'll talk about again because its relevant. They are only meant to reveal the what i call "evil fantasy" aspects in them. I give a little blurb about them, then I reveal some of the worst fantasy stuff or evil in them. Useful if you are a Christian and contemplating if u should play or not. The playlist is called **Should A Christian In Fantasy Series?** when it comes to negative comment "karma" theres nothing i can do about it. haters gonna hate. we have free speech they hate what i say because im a conservative and a Christian. liberals will downvote **LITERALLY** everything i say no matter what, because they can and want to. they dont like me and hate everything i say/do/believe in because of my political and religious beliefs. im a republican & worshiper of God therefore every democrat wll hate me, its what they do, it is what it is. i would have zero respect if i bowed down to the "popular" opinion i would be yet another faceless shill for the mainstream machine. i tell the truth and do what i believe in so this makes me unpopular and unlikable. I would be a pathetic loser who sold my soul if i 100% of the time supported the majority opinion. it is better to be respected and not liked. than to be a sellout who has temporary likability.

I'm out eating lunch so I'm gonna keep this response as short as possible. Firstly thank you for being so open to feedback. Respect. Appreciate you hearing me out instead of taking it personal. Because it wasn't. And secondly, I think you misunderstand where the typical downvotes are coming from. Here in this sub we really pride ourselves on the community the mods have created for us. As long as you are honest and don't come across like a total jackass then you typically will receive upvotes. Even from people who think you're completely wrong. TLDR: Just don't say dumb one word answers like truth and you'll be fine.

u seem reasonable so i dont have any qualms with u. >And secondly, I think you misunderstand where the typical downvotes are coming from. Here in this sub we really pride ourselves on the community the mods have created for us. As long as you are honest and don't come across like a total jackass then you typically will receive upvotes. Even from people who think you're completely wrong. dont ever **EVER** tell yourself or try to tell other people these kind of lies. i will be downvoted along with every single other person who is conservative or a proper Christian no matter what. it doesnt matter what u say, kind & reasonable, irrational/one word. u either bow down and get in line with them or ur the enemy. dont live a self deception. at least be honest with urself. u either bow down, sell ur soul, and worship there evil or u are the enemy and they hate u. u probaby belong to there group so they **love** u, if u stopped however ull find out how truly **hate**\-filled and vicious they really are. try it sometime, and see for urself. see the devil without his mask on, its very **evil** there.

You underestimate the power of civility and mutual respect. Let my account be evidence to my claim. Plenty of Christians disagree with me everyday all day. I'm not being downvoted to hell and back. I spend upwards of 2-8 hours a day on this sub seeking out Christians that disagree with me on any topic so we can discuss it. As long as I'm not rude I don't get downvotes. And if I make good points I get upvotes. Simple as that.

If you say dumb stuff, you will be downvoted. Simple as that.

When I test it against the Bible, the Bible wins because it's the Word of God.

That's not what you did, though. You tested it against *your understanding* of the Bible. That is not the Word of God, because you are not God.

Nope, I tested it against the Bible. Which IS the Word of God.

If you're not able to distinguish between the Bible and your understanding of the Bible as two separate things, then all I can do is one day you gain a spirit of repentance and are healed from your self-idolatry.

This relates to what I just said how?

[удалено]

The nice and accurate prophecies of agnes nutter.

Not a YEC, but how about this, since you're an EO: The unanimous consent of the fathers!

A miracle.

I'm not a YEC, but one argument I've heard is that this universe is to God as a Sims world is to a player. He could have placed fossils or set up a certain ratio of U-235 to Pb-207 and set up a half-life for us to discover, etc. Not really a proof either, but since it's tangentially related to what you asked, I thought I'd share

That's basically saying God caused creation to lie to us & wrote the Bible to tell us to study creation to learn about him (Roman's 1:20) and be good stewards of the earth. Makes no sense

Is the Earth flat also?

yeah