Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Arguments for Young Earth Creationism

young earth creationism science evolution darwin punctuated equilibrium dinosaur soft tissue transitional forms human population growth

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
13 replies to this topic

#1
Jzyehoshua

Jzyehoshua
  • Members
  • 89 posts

The following is just a concise summary of my **link removed **at my apologetics website,  **name removed ***

1. Human Population Growth:

Annual population growth rates exceed 1% in most of the world's countries, and at a 1% growth rate one goes from 8 people to 7 billion in just 2,071 years. Even if assuming population grew just half as fast as it does today, at a 0.50% growth rate, human civilization would still be only 4,130 years old. And if dropping down to rates just 1/5th the rates seen today, at a 0.20% growth rate, 8 individuals still grow to 7 billion in just 6,849 years.

https://www.cia.gov/...r/2002rank.html

For an Evolutionist to argue that human population has been around millions of years they must argue that growth has been at a standstill all that time, and that human population did not begin growing substantially until the past 10,000 years. This is a strong evidence the world is younger.

2. Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Multiple instances have now been documented of dinosaur soft tissue including flexible blood vessels and preserved dinosaur skin. Even large numbers of dinosaur eggs with the soft eggshells preserved by massive amounts of sediment after being flooded out of their nests were discovered. While iron has been shown to be capable of preserving soft tissue for 2 years, it does not explain how the organic material could have been preserved for tens of millions, contrary to all predictions of evolution.

Examples:

A) 2005 discovery of T-Rex soft tissue.

B) 2009 discovery of hadrosaur soft tissue.

C) 2013 discovery of hadrosaur soft tissue.

D) 2013 lufengosaurus egg soft tissue.

3. Transitional Forms

Darwin's falsifiable prediction that the fossil record would produce the required transitions between core types of life has been utterly proven false. Thus his original model of phyletic gradualism was largely abandoned after 1972 when Gould and Eldredge created a new theory, Punctuated Equilibrium, proposing evolution just sped up too fast for the transitions to appear in the fossil record - a convenient way of denying the fossil record's evidence to move the goalposts.

Evolution: Library: Punctuated Equilibrium
http://creation.com/...1_3_292-298.pdf

Transitions listed today in Wikipedia's list of transitional forms are the same types of life seen today, ancient snails and nautiloids (e.g. Ammonoidea, Nautiloidea) which are similar to snails and nautiloids seen today. Ancient octopi (e.g. Palaeoctopus, Proteroctopus, Vampyronassa) which are strikingly similar to octopi seen today. There are ancient cockroaches (Aphthoroblattina), butterflies (Archaeolepis), spiders (Attercopus, Eoplectreurys), bees (Melittosphex), ants (Sphecomyrma), and leaf insects (Eophyllium), similar to insects today. There are ancient pangolins (Eomanis). There are ancient deer (Heteroprox), camels (Protylopus), and antelope (Eotragus). Etc. However, what is generally lacking are the transitions between these core types of life. Microevolution is compatible with the Genesis 1 account where species were told to speciate after their kinds, and does not infer a common ancestor.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A number of bipedal fossils have been discovered in recent years, and the oldest hominids in humanity's family tree are all now recognized to have walked upright and had unusual complexity similar to modern man, such as advanced faces. Orrorin tugenensis walked upright and was in an advanced stage of evolution. Sahelanthropus tchadensis discovered walked upright and had the face of a hominid half its age. Ardipithecus ramidus walked upright and was so advanced it disproved the popular apes to humans theory. Footprints discovered in 2009 showed Erectus walked upright. And Lucy, aka Afarensis, walked upright per a new study in 2011.

* Ardipithecus:

Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found

* Orrorin:

BBC News | SCI/TECH | 'Oldest' ape-man fossils unearthed

* Sahelanthropus:

Palaeoanthropology: Hominid revelations from Chad : Article : Nature
Facelift seals standing of oldest hominid : Nature News

Oldest member of human family found : Nature News

* Erectus:

http://www.nytimes.c...nce/27foot.html

* Afarensis:

"Lucy" Was No Swinger, Walked Like Us, Fossil Suggests

On top of this a large number of alleged missing links have been discovered to have coexisted so that their evolving from one another as had been claimed is highly unlikedly. Most notably Afarensis and Ramidus coexisted, Neanderthals and Humans coexisted, and Habilis and Erectus coexisted.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Finds test human origins theory
A New Discovery in Human Evolution - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

Skull May Alter Experts' View Of Human Descent's Branches - NYTimes.com
Fossils paint messy picture of human origins - Technology & science - Science | NBC News

Oldest <i>Homo Sapiens</i> Fossils Found, Experts Say

4. Microevolutionary Rates

Microevolutionary rates today are consistent with a young earth, rather than millions or billions of years.

Rapid Evolution

Examples include Australia's cane toads which evolved longer legs and heat tolerance within a few decades, Italian wall lizards which evolved larger heads and new gut structures within a few decades, flowering plants, and rodents. That they can adapt so quickly suggests Earth is far younger, and that a common ancestor is false or we should be able to see the transitions between core types of life occur.

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
PLOS Biology: Rapid Evolution of Enormous, Multichromosomal Genomes in Flowering Plant Mitochondria with Exceptionally High Mutation Rates
PLOS ONE: Recent and Widespread Rapid Morphological Change in Rodents


Edited by ncn, 26 July 2014 - 08:35 AM.
link to personal web site


#2
ncn

ncn

    Royal Member

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,290 posts

I have removed the link in your OP.

 

Please keep in mind that this is not about your website, it is about this site,advertising and adding links.

We currently have over 67, 000 members on this site. 

Imagine what it would be like if everyone who chose to do so began advertising their own personal blog or website? 

We, a ministry for Christ, would become no more than an online advertising billboard, losing the mission we are called to do.

 

Just a friendly reminder,

 

Please keep in mind that we all do a bit of teaching in what we write, but teaching in general is not allowed on the boards.

Only those who are in Worthy Ministry are allowed to teach.

 

If you had an answer all along and through your questioning, you were leading up to what you believe.

This is teaching.

The questions are not necessary when you already have an answer in mind.

Present your thoughts first and open it up for a discussion.

That is the difference between teaching and discussing.

If we allowed every member to "teach", imagine what sort of teaching we would find.

 

God Bless. 

 

Nigel. 



#3
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 884 posts

You put forward some good arguments.

 

One of my favorites topics relates to the Purdue and Israel Geological Survey studies.  These studies put complete doubt on the "age of the earth" and currently accepted radiometric dates.

 

Through their studies you can see a direct correlation between solar/cosmic penetration of the magnetic field and drops in decay rates. The weaker the penetration , the faster the decay. The stronger the penetration, the slower the decay.  This relationship can be seen during solar flares, between summer and winter, and even at the daily peaks that naturally occur at midnight (midnight is when the solar wind penetrates the magnetic field at right angles, creating most penetration).

 

The current scientific position is that these changes are negligible, but this lacks logic when applied to history. If small reductions in solar/cosmic penetration cause small increases in decay, of course massive reductions in solar/cosmic penetration would cause massive increases in decay rates.  And history shows the magnetic field was vastly stronger than today's magnetic field, and would have therefore caused vast increases in radiometric decay rates in the past. All assumptions of the constancy of radiometric decay are illogical and incorrect.



#4
Eshai

Eshai
  • Members
  • 7 posts

Simply, is the old earth theory actually contradictory to biblical teaching? What are the thoughts on beliving in such things as the gap theory, and an ancient universe, as being in accordance with Christianity?

Or is the belief in an ancient earth antagonistic to being a Christian? From my own studies, I have not observed that the bible explicity states how old the earth is.



#5
Bonky

Bonky

    Junior Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPip
  • 135 posts
I'm not seeing any arguments for a young earth. Evolution could be completely false and it wouldn't mean the earth is young. Creation could be true and it wouldn't mean the earth is young.

Edited by Bonky, 04 August 2014 - 08:07 AM.


#6
Eshai

Eshai
  • Members
  • 7 posts

Well Bonky, the reason I ask is because I honestly do not know what I believe concerning this subject. Regardless of what is true, I personally do not see that evidence for an old earth/old universe would negate biblical teaching... and I dare say that it would certainly not negate a believer's faith, because in my eyes an old earth does not prove the bible to be false.



#7
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,121 posts

I'm not seeing any arguments for a young earth. Evolution could be completely false and it wouldn't mean the earth is young. Creation could be true and it wouldn't mean the earth is young.

 

=============================================================================

 

I haven't seen One "Valid" argument for an Old Earth.

 

Young Earth Evidence:

1.  Genesis

2.  Carbon 14 has a half life of about 5700 years.  A Lump of C14 the size of the Earth would have all decayed in a million years.
Question:  Why do Diamonds, Oil, Coal, and Fossil Wood still contain Carbon 14 if the ages are of Millions or Billions of years?

3.  Helium in Zircons. http://creation.com/...onfound-critics

4.  Jupiter gives off twice as much heat as it receives from the sun...if it were Billions of years old it would be an Icicle!

5.  Dr. Russ Humphries predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune based on 6,000 years timescale ...Voyager 2 Space Craft confirmed them.
http://creation.com/...ge-of-the-earth

6.  Recession of the Moon...it would have been touching the Earth @ 1.4-1.5 Billion Years ago

7.  The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Hydrogen/ Helium Ratio and Luminosity.  The average Temp of the Earth today is 15C (59 degrees F) so the average temperature 3.5 billion years ago would have been -2C (28 degrees F).  The Planet would've been engulfed with ICE!  And once there, the feedback loop keeps it there.

8.  Dinosaur Soft Tissue

9.  Recorded History
 

Here's 101 reasons:  http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth if you got some time.



#8
Bonky

Bonky

    Junior Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPip
  • 135 posts

=============================================================================
 
I haven't seen One "Valid" argument for an Old Earth.



The title of the thread is "Arguments for Young Earth Creationism".




 

Young Earth Evidence:

1.  Genesis

2.  Carbon 14 has a half life of about 5700 years.  A Lump of C14 the size of the Earth would have all decayed in a million years.
Question:  Why do Diamonds, Oil, Coal, and Fossil Wood still contain Carbon 14 if the ages are of Millions or Billions of years?

3.  Helium in Zircons. http://creation.com/...onfound-critics

4.  Jupiter gives off twice as much heat as it receives from the sun...if it were Billions of years old it would be an Icicle!

5.  Dr. Russ Humphries predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune based on 6,000 years timescale ...Voyager 2 Space Craft confirmed them.
http://creation.com/...ge-of-the-earth

6.  Recession of the Moon...it would have been touching the Earth @ 1.4-1.5 Billion Years ago

7.  The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Hydrogen/ Helium Ratio and Luminosity.  The average Temp of the Earth today is 15C (59 degrees F) so the average temperature 3.5 billion years ago would have been -2C (28 degrees F).  The Planet would've been engulfed with ICE!  And once there, the feedback loop keeps it there.

8.  Dinosaur Soft Tissue

9.  Recorded History
 
Here's 101 reasons:  http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth if you got some time.



Once again, you're not confirming a young earth, you're merely laying out arguments that attempt to cast doubt on billions or millions of years. The Earth could still be 50,000 years old and it would be way too old for a biblical timeframe. You, and many others seem to think, if I can cast any doubt on billions of years, I automatically win. That's not exactly how this works.

#9
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,121 posts

 

Once again, you're not confirming a young earth, you're merely laying out arguments that attempt to cast doubt on billions or millions of years. The Earth could still be 50,000 years old and it would be way too old for a biblical timeframe. You, and many others seem to think, if I can cast any doubt on billions of years, I automatically win. That's not exactly how this works.

 

 

 

====================================================================================

 

 

The title of the thread is "Arguments for Young Earth Creationism".

 

So? I wasn't replying to the Title of the Thread, I was responding directly to Your statement......"I'm not seeing any arguments for a young earth."  Then proceeded to give evidences.

 

 

Once again, you're not confirming a young earth, you're merely laying out arguments that attempt to cast doubt on billions or millions of years.

 

That's Factually Incorrect. SEE:

 

Helium in Zircons.

 

Dr. Russ Humphries predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune based on 6,000 years timescale ...Voyager 2 Space Craft confirmed them.

 

Since it took you just over 10 minutes to retort...you probably didn't look @ them closely.

 

 

The Earth could still be 50,000 years old and it would be way too old for a biblical timeframe

 

Factually Incorrect.

 

As long as there was no Death/Disease/Thorns before Adam sinned....it would still line up with Scripture.

 

 

if I can cast any doubt on billions of years

 

Yes, it's easy.  Just Introduce the Scientific Method and ALL techniques Vapor Lock.



#10
Bonky

Bonky

    Junior Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPip
  • 135 posts

So? I wasn't replying to the Title of the Thread, I was responding directly to Your statement......"I'm not seeing any arguments for a young earth."  Then proceeded to give evidences.


In essence you weren't replying to the topic. The topic is "Evidences for a young earth". We shouldn't be surprised that we're not finding evidences offered for an old one.
 
 

Once again, you're not confirming a young earth, you're merely laying out arguments that attempt to cast doubt on billions or millions of years.

 
That's Factually Incorrect. SEE:
 
Helium in Zircons.


Humphreys has a lot of critics, even creationists who are critics of his research. I wouldn't call this strong evidence at all.
 


Dr. Russ Humphries predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune based on 6,000 years timescale ...Voyager 2 Space Craft confirmed them.
 
Since it took you just over 10 minutes to retort...you probably didn't look @ them closely.


I don't care about Uranus or Neptune, the subject is Earth.
 
 

The Earth could still be 50,000 years old and it would be way too old for a biblical timeframe

 
Factually Incorrect.
 
As long as there was no Death/Disease/Thorns before Adam sinned....it would still line up with Scripture.


Then where do the 6000 - 10,000 year ages of the Earth come from? Not from a vacuum.

#11
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,121 posts

 

 

 

=======================================================================================
 

Humphreys has a lot of critics, even creationists who are critics of his research. I wouldn't call this strong evidence at all.

 

Ad Hominem (Fallacy).

 

If you would have "clicked" the link you would have seen ALL the "attempted" refutations and subsequent defense. I have reviewed the Design and Methods/Conclusions and Results, it's air tight. 

Helium in Zircons is evidence for a Young Earth and is currently undisputed (For 12 Years now).

Please show otherwise....?

 

And Fallacies are Fallacious.

 

 

I don't care about Uranus or Neptune, the subject is Earth.

 

Well Bonky, if the predictions of magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune based on 6,000 years timescale are correct exactly to what was found, that means the Solar System is 6,000 years old; ERGO....the Earth is ~ 6,000 years old. 

Unless you're postulating the Earth is 4.6 Billion Years old and Neptune and Uranus showed up more recently?

 

Then where do the 6000 - 10,000 year ages of the Earth come from?

 

From the Genealogy Lists Comparison, SEE: Genesis 5 and 11



#12
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 884 posts

Simply, is the old earth theory actually contradictory to biblical teaching? What are the thoughts on beliving in such things as the gap theory, and an ancient universe, as being in accordance with Christianity?

Or is the belief in an ancient earth antagonistic to being a Christian? From my own studies, I have not observed that the bible explicity states how old the earth is.

 

I agree with you. The earth was formless and empty before the first day , and so already existed and we do not know for how long. The reason I join in and support these YEC threads is that I still believe in 6 literal days involving biological  creation less than 10 000 years ago. So I am still compressing the fossil containing layers (allegedly 600 million year old geology) into 10000 years which gives my view a strong overlap with the YEC position.



#13
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 884 posts

I'm not seeing any arguments for a young earth. Evolution could be completely false and it wouldn't mean the earth is young. Creation could be true and it wouldn't mean the earth is young.

 

My arguments revolve around the overestimation of the age of rocks. The earth is definitely younger than scientists claim, but how young is a scientific unknown due to scientists underestimating the obvious Purdue effect.



#14
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,877 posts

So Simple Even A Child Can Get It

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

The same was in the beginning with God.

 

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

 

Yet Most Men Willingly

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

Give Up Hope

 

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

 

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

 

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:10-12

 

~

 

I'm not seeing any arguments for a young earth. Evolution could be completely false and it wouldn't mean the earth is young. Creation could be true and it wouldn't mean the earth is young.

 

My arguments revolve around the overestimation of the age of rocks. The earth is definitely younger than scientists claim, but how young is a scientific unknown due to scientists underestimating the obvious Purdue effect.

 

:thumbsup:

 

He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

 

The movement of the Earth's tectonic plates and other geologic processes erase craters over time, he said.

 

"Impact craters dominate the surface of other planets and bodies in our solar system, like the famously pockmarked moon and Mercury, but the Earth looks different," Bowling said. "The Earth's crust is very dynamic and active, and over time it pushes and pulls these craters deep below the surface, until eventually they are sunk into the Earth's mantle and disappear."

 

Although it is known that natural processes erase craters fairly quickly from the Earth's surface, this model was the first to quantify how many craters have likely been erased, he said. http://www.purdue.ed...odel-finds.html

 

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network