Thoughts on the Young Earth theory

[Gilhelmi]

Last time, I questioned evolution.

This time, I question the Young Earth Theory. It states that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, because that is when God created the Universe.

I have a few problems. One, I have seen pictures of the Big Bang, I know (approximately) how fast the solar system and galaxy is moving. I know that theses two things means the Universe is at least a few Billion years old. Also, the Big Bang was developed by a Vatican Scientist (for me that helps, not good evidence for everyone) and was originally panned as "Religion trying to pass itself off as science".

The second problem I have, the Solar System itself. If everything was created 6,000 years ago, things would be 'cleaner'. There would be fewer craters on the Moon, Mars, Earth, and every other planet and moon we have seen. Comet/Meteor strikes are rare, if they happened enough to create the number of craters that are on Earth (in a 6000 year period), nothing would be here. We would all be dead.

My last problem is a purely Biblical issue (if you do not care, please skip this section). God can do anything, that has been established. God can create a universe that already had signs of age, but why would He? Part of the fun of creating something from scratch is to turn it on and watch it go, with some guidance from the operator (God). Big Bang Theory lines up very well with the six days of creation. In the beginning there was only God (science says nothing, but that's another discussion). God said "let there be light", Big Bang was very bright (we can still see the thing). God separated the heavens from the earth, the natural forces (Gravity, Electromagnetism, Weak Nuclear, Strong Nuclear) separated from one another. I could go on but you see my point.

I have minor issues with evolutionary theory (I still like micro-evolutionary theory better). But I have major issues with young earth theory (I have seen the Big Bang that my Father hath made ).

PS: If something does not make sense, let me know, and I will fix it. I need a nap and will better articulate myself later.

EDIT: I remembered how I was taught about Genesis.

A mommy and daddy love each other very much. When they hug in a special way, a baby is born.

Is that a lie? No, it was an overly simplistic way of telling the inquisitive 3 year old where babies come from.

The ancient Hebrews did not have the word or basic concepts for how God created the Universe. They did not know about the Theories of Quantum Physics or the concept of Gravity. So how does God describe the creation of the Universe? By simplifying it down to their level, and letting them learn more and grow into the full understanding and knowledge.

[Gravekeeper]

Well, the first issue is even calling it a theory. Its purely invented bullshit. Like I said in the other thread the movement was mainly devised by some crazy Texan in the 60s. Who had no background in either science or theology. All he had was a horrifically mistaken belief that the Book of Genesis was a literal account of the beginning of the universe.

Its pretty much unique to America, unfortunately. Much like other forms of bullshit such as Scientology and climate change deniers.

As a caveat, its important to note that creationism has pretty much be hijacked by the young earth types in mainstream. As creationism itself has naturally been around for quite some time. However, the broader philosophy of creationism does not reject scientific findings on the age of the Earth or evolution. Those elements are much more recent in human history and developed exclusively in the west and specifically America.

Basically, as we learned more about the universe and science in general the conflict emerged between creation myths and scientific knowledge. Normal people simply incorporated science into their beliefs. A handful of screeching idiots with a persecution complex went the other way.

These idiots are very loud and lately very prominent in the US due to the amount of noise they generate. They perceive everything as an attack on their beliefs and the first step to, I don't know, Satan walking the Earth or something.

Young Earth creationists, climate change deniers, evolution deniers, anti-vaxxers, the government is going to take our guns, the Muslims are going to take over our small shitty town in Alabama and force Sharia law on us, War on Christmas(tm), etc etc etc.

Its a specific type of person. They're scared of everything but refuse to open a book and learn anything about what they're scared of. They are always under attack by something and some nebulous group ( liberals, feminists, scientists, gays, Muslims, brown people in general, etc ) is out to get them and force them to do something by undermining all of society somehow. Then make their kids gay atheists.

[BlaqueKatt]

I have minor issues with evolutionary theory (I still like micro-evolutionary theory better).

micro evolution to macro evolution(those ARE NOT scientific terms, they were invented by creationists to discredit science BTW)is easily explained non technically:

[Gravekeeper]

I missed that part. But yes, what Blaque said.

Evolution is a fact. These people need to deal with that. It is not some nebulous untested idea that scientists came up with. Thats not how science works. We have witnessed evolution in action through experiments. One of which has been going on for 36 years straight now tracking generations of E Coli bacteria. Its at something like 50,000+ generations and the bacteria have evolved new traits and abilities. Including the ability to utilize citric acid as a growth medium. Something normal E Coli cannot do.

[Panacea]

The Young Earth theory has no basis in fact. All the facts about the observable universe show it is much, much, much older.

That doesn't have to impact one's religious faith. What many people cannot seem to understand is that Genesis does not have to be literally true to have meaning and truth for the believer.

I'm sure you're aware that Genesis contains not one, but two creation stories? Why? How can they both be true?

Trying to make the science fit Genesis is just backwards. You make the observations and determine the facts from there. You don't try to make the observation fit what you've decided to believe.

The Bible is not a science textbook.

[gremcint]

so you say the earth was created 6000 years ago and any evidence that makes it look older is god's will?

Then how do you know the earth wasn't created 5 seconds ago?

[Bloodsoul]

Urge to rewatch The Matrix rising…

Here's a (possibly blasphemous) thought: what was God doing before he made the universe? No matter how you look at it, the universe has existed for a finite expanse of time, whilst God is believed to be infinite — that's a lot of time available prior to the universe's creation (of course prior to its creation, one can safely assume that there was no "time," which may-or-may not make God's semblance of eternity a pointless semantic).

Or does the question of a pre-universe from a Biblical standpoint not matter because it doesn't involve us?

[siead_lietrathua]

micro evolution to macro evolution(those ARE NOT scientific terms, they were invented by creationists to discredit science BTW)is easily explained non technically:

...
....
*steals picture and stores it away*
that is an awesome representation as to why there is no damn macro and micro evolution. it's all the same damn thing, just looked at in different timescales.

as to young earth creationism.... i just think it's outright silly when you watch some of the videos on this shit. especially the debunking ones. (i'm a big fan of the "hello i'm a scientist" series Logicked does https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...11bMqat5_Mca1i )

but to me, it just requires too much ignoring of reality. not "faith". just outright pretending that things that exist, do not. intentional, enforced ignorance.

for one, YEC states that humanity began 6000 years ago in the middle east. but there is evidence of advance tribal humans 10,000bc in the Americas. there is Chinese pottery dated earlier than 15,000bc, cave paintings around 40,000bc in europe. hell they think there are arrowheads as far back as 64,000 years.

it requires believing that dinosaurs didn't exist, or that they did exist but were somehow all tame vegan critters. i dunno man, even the flinstones made that hard to be believable.

it requires believing in noah's flood 4000 years ago, because that's their failsafe at to why everything looks the way it does. (rock layers? flood! no dinosaurs? flood! grand canyon? flood! etcetc) which brings it's own layers of fault. i mean...

it requires believing that 8 humans can generate enough people within the generous estimate of 500ish years (between noah and abraham) to not only build and populate the major cities in just the middle east (several into the 10,000s+), but also their uncounted slave populations and the smaller nomad groups without huge genetic issues from the inbreeding, or accounting for high infant mortality rates/ child-bed death rates (childbirth is still a #1 killer of girls in 3rd world nations). and that's just the middle east. it's not factoring all the other continents and cultures.

it requires believing that 8.7+ million species were crammed onto a wood boat 450"x75"x45" and managed to survive not just the 40 days of flooding, but the following 150 days before the water began to recede. even if we fall back to the ridiculous, undefined "kinds", it would still be far more than could fit on such a boat. and the math they use is super-special, averaging animals to the size of a sheep to account for baby elephants while ignoring that the volume of incests alone could probably fill that vessel.
not to mention food storage, waste removal... and what poor sucker animal has to carry the tapeworms/ ticks? what human host brought the virusus and bacteria along "ok jimmy, you got the short straw. you take the HIV while your wife gets the black plague."

i could keep going for forever on this so i'll stop now lol.

[TheHuckster]

I've had many heated debates in futility with a family member who is a young earth creationist.

His arguments boil down to two flawed axioms:

- If creation didn't happen as it states in Genesis literally, it means God is a liar... and by trying to claim otherwise is accusing God of being a liar, which makes one a horrible soul who deserves hell.

- All the evidence that backs and/or proves Genesis wrong was planted by Satan to deter faith in God. That means dinosaur fossils, background radiation, images taken by the Hubble Telescope and Keppler, and pretty much any other thing that contradicts a 6,000 year old earth were actually created and planted by Satan to "test" people's beliefs.

This, in his eyes, make for a watertight argument that can be used to counter pretty much any "attack" on young-earth creationism. If I try to claim Genesis was written in a period when people didn't havea concept of (nor cared about) the actual timeline of creation, then I'm calling everything a lie. If I claim that we can measure the speed of light and see stars billions of lightyears away, he'll claim that the devil made them to make us "stumble" and betray faith.

It's a losing battle, and unlike many heated arguments I've had with other people who at least back their claims with a lot better citations than "God said so" it's about as fun as taking a bath with a grouchy cat attached between your legs.

[Gravekeeper]

Hahah, wow. That argument is like the theology equivalent of yelling "A wizard did it!". >.>

[Andara Bledin]

Ugh. Biblical literalists are the worst. Not the least of which because they don't take the entire thing as literal, just the bits and pieces that support what they want... >_<

Seriuosly, how does someone who believes that Genesis is literal reconcile the wearing of blended fabrics and the cutting of their hair?

[HYHYBT]

Oh, that's simple enough; there are at least two ways. One is dividing OT laws into ceremonial and moral (though with no clear, consistent line.) The other is simpler: Leviticus and Deuteronomy are given as the laws *for ancient Israel.* Are we in ancient Israel? No.

[gremcint]

Hahah, wow. That argument is like the theology equivalent of yelling "A wizard did it!". >.>

Its Christianity we don't have to explain it.

[cindybubbles]

Its Christianity we don't have to explain it.

I'm a Christian, yet I don't believe in this "Young Earth creationist" stuff. You don't build something big without starting small, after all.

[siead_lietrathua]

Its Christianity we don't have to explain it.

i'm assuming this was sarcasm... but i want to address it like it's real.

see, christianity DOES have to explain it. as does every positive claim of assertion of truth/ facts/ etc.
the default answer to the origins of the 'verse, or anything yet undiscovered is "we don't know". and that's true for anything we haven't known in the past, or have yet to discover in the future. there's no shame in not knowing. it just means there is more work to be done.
but theists make a claim that a god created the 'verse. because they are making a positive claim, the burden of proof is theirs. period.
young earth creationists have failed that burden of proof. they not only ignore or distort observable reality to fit their narrative, the stuff they make up are demonstrably bad science, or outright blatant lies.
scientists have yet to make a positive claim about where the universe came from*. for now they stick with "we don't know". and that's perfectly reasonable, and perfectly honest.

*big bang theory is not about the origin, but about the expansion of the 'verse. if anyone claims that big bang theory doesn't explain how the universe began, the correct answer is "duh".