Please explain "young earth" to me

[MelissaD]

I'm not trying to start any kind of debate, I promise!! Please explain the young earth theory to me. How does it "jive" with science?

Melissa

[Volty]

Young Earth is the concept that the Earth is 6000 or so years old because, allegedly, that's what the Bible claims when you add up the 'begats'.

It in no way, no how jives with science. It rejects science andscience rejects it. I's the science equivelent of covinering your ears and endlessly repeating "La! La! La! I'm not listening!" Athough I'm sure others here disagree.

[CookieMonster]

I'll just direct you to further reading :)

Observational Science vs. Historical Science (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science)

The Reason Behind Being 'Young Earth' (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp)

Don't Creationists Deny the Laws of Nature (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/creationists-deny-laws-of-nature)

Link to other links (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp)

[Ellie]

There are many well-educated, intelligent scientists who absolutely believe that science supports a young earth.

Since no one was around to actually observe creation, it's all theory. IMO, special creation (or as people like to say today, intelligent design) makes way more sense to me than evolution.

[abbeyej]

How does it "jive" with science?

One of the ways that many scientific arguments are countered is by suggesting that God created a "mature" world, not a brand new one. This new world was already filled with rocks and trees and fossils and lake beds and mountains and oceans that were complete and aged, even on their first days of existence.

[Karin]

Another book to look at is In the Days of Peleg by Patrtick Hansen. While young earth does not jive with the current scientific paradigm theories of uniformitarianism and evolution, it does jive with cataclysmic theory, etc. Bear in mind that no one can prove either of these theories, and both theories are capable of predicting results. I think I've managed to state this without debating! btw, I don't fall into either camp.

[Twinmom]

I won't try to explain since I am brain-dead today, but I will offer you another link that gives a lot of info on the subject.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

[Tami]

Young Earth is the concept that the Earth is 6000 or so years old because, allegedly, that's what the Bible claims when you add up the 'begats'.

It in no way, no how jives with science. It rejects science andscience rejects it. I's the science equivelent of covinering your ears and endlessly repeating "La! La! La! I'm not listening!" Athough I'm sure others here disagree.


Wow, that wasn't insulting or anything. :grouphug:

[Kelli in TN]

It rejects science andscience rejects it. I's the science equivelent of covinering your ears .

Geez-Loweeze Volty! Have been drinking and typing? :smilielol5:
::cheers2:

[Cadam]

It is the concept that the earth was created only a few thousand years ago and when it was created the trees were full grown and there were mountains and canyons exc. without them having to take the time to grow or evolve.

[Texas T]

Wow, that wasn't insulting or anything. :grouphug:

What? Insulting? I don't know what you're talking about. I was covering my ears (or I guess my eyes) and going la la la, so I must have totally missed what you're talking about. ;)
:iagree:

Teresa

[Donna T.]

Young earth Creationists believe the world was created around 6000 years ago. Some go alittle further and say around 8000 years ago. The numbers are based on the geneologies in the Bible, but not those alone. They are also based on the history of the Hebrews, not all of which is strictly Bible history. Why the Hebrews? Because they even today count time from creation. The Deluge (Noah's flood) is the main event, so to speak, in determining the history of man and the earth. Everything before the flood is dated primarily from counting backwards from that event. And, no, it's not at all inconsistent with science. There is much evidence that many of the things which old earth evolutionists or old earth creationists (yes, there are many of those) point at to support their conclusions can also be explained by the effects of the Deluge on the earth. For example, the old earthers look at the fossil record and say that smaller, less complex animals lay deeper in the earth's bedrock or layers, while larger, more complex animals are generally found in shallower layers. So, therefore, they conclude that the simplier animals proceeded the more complex animals by a long period of time. But, a young earther would say that Noah's flood laid down all animals in a very quick and forceful fashion. And, as it did so, the larger animals pooled together in particular places and settled down at a slower rate. There is much more to this, of course, but that's the general jist of it. The layers would just be a natural consequence of the forcefulness of the flood waters.

There are other things. For example, young earthers say it's not true that fossils take long, long periods of time to form. That there are certain conditions that must be present, and when they are, fossils can form quite quickly. It has more to do with the right conditions than with the length of time they are lying around. And, again, they point to the Deluge as creating those conditions. There have been reports of men who have buried certain things during their childhoods (not all that unusual for little boys, my kids do things like that all the time) and dug them up many years later, sometimes not even on purpose, and finding that the item is as solid as a rock.

And, a very recent discovery that is just becoming known by the general public is that oil is currently being produced by our planet. We've been told by the old earthers that the oil comes primarily from the deposit of dinosaur fossils. That once it's all used up, it'll be gone. But, now we are learning this is not even true. The Earth is constantly replenishing the supply of oil. Now, that would effect the world economy in a huge, huge way. So, we should all be hearing alot more about that.

And, of course, theology certainly effects our position on this. I have read that the earliest church fathers taught that just as the world was created in 6 days and on the 7th day God rested, that so also the world will exist for 6000 years and during the 7th thousand, it will rest. Personally, we follow Ussher's chronology which places creation at 4004 BC. So, if this is true, we're nearing the 7th thousand year, it is in fact upon us, and certainly many Christians believe we are nearing what we call the last days/the end of the age.

My husband says man couldn't have been around for much longer than the new earthers say, because if we had been... we'd all have argued each other to death by now! Whatever. You gotta hear him say it... he's funny and it's nice to have a little humor when we are talking about this subject.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

And, a very recent discovery that is just becoming known by the general public is that oil is currently being produced by our planet. We've been told by the old earthers that the oil comes primarily from the deposit of dinosaur fossils. That once it's all used up, it'll be gone. But, now we are learning this is not even true. The Earth is constantly replenishing the supply of oil. Now, that would effect the world economy in a huge, huge way. So, we should all be hearing alot more about that.


Ooh, please link this. I'd love to read about it.

[Donna T.]

Ooh, please link this. I'd love to read about it.

There has been alot written about this lately. I first became aware of it just by turning the computer on and finding it on the front page of yahoo news. It was also reported on AOL news. The theory behind the findings is not new, but there is more and more evidence being presented that bolster the claims.

Here is one article:

www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45838

I hope that link works. But, you can do a search on find lots of info. Maybe type in oil and constant supply. I will look for other articles to post if you are interested further.

[CookieMonster]

It is the concept that the earth was created only a few thousand years ago and when it was created the trees were full grown and there were mountains and canyons exc. without them having to take the time to grow or evolve.

This is not completely accurate. I think you've combined two ideas; possibly.

Many "young earthers" believe the mountains and canyons seen today are the result of the catalysmic geologic occurance known as Noah's Flood.

However, they do believe that Adam, Eve, and the rest of creation was created full grown. But the world that was originally created has changed dramatically since the Fall and the Flood.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

There has been alot written about this lately. I first became aware of it just by turning the computer on and finding it on the front page of yahoo news. It was also reported on AOL news. The theory behind the findings is not new, but there is more and more evidence being presented that bolster the claims.

Here is one article:

www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45838

I hope that link works. But, you can do a search on find lots of info. Maybe type in oil and constant supply. I will look for other articles to post if you are interested further.

Ah, well, yes, probably something other than World Net Daily. Sorry.

The links I did find didn't seem too enthusiastic. But I'll keep looking. I'd actually like to find the Science Magazine article they reference. No luck for me so far.

[CookieMonster]

Pam, have you searched for abiotic theory?

I think WND and others were extrapolating from this theory and applying it to young earth principles.

Abiotic Theory on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin) - there are plenty of other articles if you google

[CookieMonster]

Here's the Science Magazine article the WND article is based off of...Abiogenic Hydorcarbon Production, blah, blah, supergeek lingo (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5863/604)

Hope it helps...:001_smile:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Pam, have you searched for abiotic theory?

I think WND and others were extrapolating from this theory and applying it to young earth principles.

Abiotic Theory on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin) - there are plenty of other articles if you google

Yes, I searched abiotic theory oil science magazine. Some decent hits. Nothing that isn't evolution vs creationism, though. But I didn't finish looking.

[Karin]

(yes, there are many of those) point at to support their conclusions can also be explained by the effects of the Deluge on the earth. For example, the old earthers look at the fossil record and say that smaller, less complex animals lay deeper in the earth's bedrock or layers, while larger, more complex animals are generally found in shallower layers. So, therefore, they conclude that the simplier animals proceeded the more complex animals by a long period of time. But, a young earther would say that Noah's flood laid down all animals in a very quick and forceful fashion. And, as it did so, the larger animals pooled together in particular places and settled down at a slower rate. There is much more to this, of course, but that's the general jist of it. The layers would just be a natural consequence of the forcefulness of the flood waters.

There are other things. For example, young earthers say it's not true that fossils take long, long periods of time to form. That there are certain conditions that must be present, and when they are, fossils can form quite quickly. It has more to do with the right conditions than with the length of time they are lying around. And, again, they point to the Deluge as creating those conditions. And, a very recent discovery that is just becoming known by the general public is that oil is currently being produced by our planet. We've been told by the old earthers that the oil comes primarily from the deposit of dinosaur fossils. That once it's all used up, it'll be gone. But, now we are learning this is not even true. The Earth is constantly replenishing the supply of oil. .

I just wanted to add that some young earth creationists and some gap theologians also believe that the continental split happened after the flood in an enormous cataclysmic event (see "In the Days of Peleg" for one.) This type of cataclysmic event would answer the question of how enormous animals such as mammoths came to be quickly frozen, such as the one found with undigested, temperate growing plant food in its mouth and stomach (it was good enough that dogs ate the meat.) The theory here is that oil is produced very quickly by high heat and pressure. There are fossil records where many animals have been thrown together, and bone fragments have been found in Antarctica. Science isn't always as neat and tidy as some would like us to believe. As for what type of force could do this, one thought is that one of the underground ice resevoirs that contains methane could have exploded, but there are others. Apparently, this could explain Plato's description of the disappearance of Atlantis as the continents don't fit perfectly. There is a lot more, and while I'm not sure if this is correct, it does explain certain things (such as the frozen mammoths) better than most other theories do.

[EKS]

I truly mean to say this in a respectful manner and I apologize if I offend someone.

Here is what I don't understand. It seems to me that creating the earth basically as it is today is sort of the way a human would do it.

Creating the universe billions of years ago using just a few rules or laws or whatever (and look at what we have now!) is the way a truly supreme being would do it.

It seems to me that what is written in the Bible is what a human with limited understanding would write after "communicating" or whatever with the supreme being about the beginnings of the universe. It seems like a human interpretation.

I think it is amazing how the Bible and scientists think along the same lines (let there be light and the big bang and all that).

I guess don't understand why it's so important that the Bible be interpreted so literally. Maybe someone can enlighten me (so to speak).

[Donna T.]

Ah, well, yes, probably something other than World Net Daily. Sorry.



I understand that. They are, by no means, my favorite source. Not even among my favorites. I actually hesitated to post it, but that's the one I could remember how to get to quickly.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Here's the Science Magazine article the WND article is based off of...Abiogenic Hydorcarbon Production, blah, blah, supergeek lingo (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5863/604)

Hope it helps...:001_smile:

Thank you very much! I'll search for it at the library -- looks like online university library doesn't have it archived yet.

[pixelroper]

I guess don't understand why it's so important that the Bible be interpreted so literally. Maybe someone can enlighten me (so to speak).

I'm trying to not over simplify the issue and still keep it simple:

For some it speaks to the Truth of God's Word. Attitudes over Biblical accuracy haven't been constant and continue to run the gamut. People & places from the Bible have been questioned at times and it has been thought portions were fabricated to tell a story metaphorically. Some argue it is all metaphorical, some argue it is all fact, some argue it is a combination--etc. Some Christians feel this debate (fact or fiction) keeps many from taking the Bible seriously and thus preventing the nonbeliever from believing (salvation).

[Virginia Dawn]

One of the ways that many scientific arguments are countered is by suggesting that God created a "mature" world, not a brand new one. This new world was already filled with rocks and trees and fossils and lake beds and mountains and oceans that were complete and aged, even on their first days of existence.

This is a theory that my dad was into when I was young. I believe it was promoted by Garner Ted Armstrong and his publication The Plain Truth. I tend to cringe when I hear this theory because in my mind it would make God into the ultimate deciever.

[Virginia Dawn]

It seems to me that what is written in the Bible is what a human with limited understanding would write after "communicating" or whatever with the supreme being about the beginnings of the universe. It seems like a human interpretation.

I think it is amazing how the Bible and scientists think along the same lines (let there be light and the big bang and all that).



There are many Christians who believe similarly. They just aren't the most vocal.

But the basic idea is that the Bible and science can be compatible and that there are many ways to interpret scripture. One way is to say that the Bible is truth, but truth written from man's limited, earth-bound and time-bound perspective. There are also alternate possible translations of the original language.

In the end, will it matter who is right about this particular question? Isn't the main point of Genesis that God created the heavens and the earth? How important is it for us to understand exactly how and when he did it?

The Bible was not written to be a comprehensive history of the world or a science textbook. It was written and compiled to give one particular group of people answers to the questions: Who are we? Where did we come from? Where are we going?

[LadyAberlin]

If you look into the eruption of Mount St Helens you will find that the forests that it wiped out date millions and billions of years when they really weren't. It also created layers of peat moss and other things I can't remember the others on the bottom of a lake and it petrified wood I believe. There is a video about it that I watched a couple of years ago. Also I've read that the Hebrew word used for evening and morning constitutes a 24 hr period. I don't think that saying that it was 6 days and then he rested to be man's reasoning. I think that it shows how powerful of a God He is. He doesn't have to take millions of yrs to do things. Also before the fall of man there was no sin and therefore no death. Evolution is based on survival of the fittest or the death of those who are not fit. You couldn't have the weaklings dying off with the fittest surviving because there was no death. A good place to read is the Answers in Genesis website. They are biologists and they believe in the young earth. Also the best creation study I've done is Heart of Wisdoms. The recommended resources in the study are awesome.

[Karin]

If you look into the eruption of Mount St Helens you will find that the forests that it wiped out date millions and billions of years when they really weren't. It also created layers of peat moss and other things I can't remember the others on the bottom of a lake and it petrified wood I believe. There is a video about it that I watched a couple of years ago. Also I've read that the Hebrew word used for evening and morning constitutes a 24 hr period. I don't think that saying that it was 6 days and then he rested to be man's reasoning. I think that it shows how powerful of a God He is. He doesn't have to take millions of yrs to do things. Also before the fall of man there was no sin and therefore no death. Evolution is based on survival of the fittest or the death of those who are not fit. You couldn't have the weaklings dying off with the fittest surviving because there was no death. A good place to read is the Answers in Genesis website. They are biologists and they believe in the young earth. Also the best creation study I've done is Heart of Wisdoms. The recommended resources in the study are awesome.

This is correct, and this isn't the only time a volcanic eruption has given this type of results. Also, that island that formed off of Iceland (was it in the 1970s?) when I was growing up was supporting life far earlier than predicted.

[Karin]

One of the ways that many scientific arguments are countered is by suggesting that God created a "mature" world, not a brand new one. This new world was already filled with rocks and trees and fossils and lake beds and mountains and oceans that were complete and aged, even on their first days of existence.

Interesting, I hadn't known this before. And then there are some who believe it was made perfectly, but that change happens faster than the theory of uniformitarianism states.