Sciencescience

Mon Feb 4, 2019, 04:44 PM

Is Young Earth Creation Crazy?


BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S. * | THURSDAY, JANUARY 31, 2019

A creation-believing friend of mine attended a dinner with various scientists. One of them who favored intelligent design said that any scientist who believed in a young earth was “crazy.” Then, remembering one in his audience, he turned to my friend and said, “No offense.” The reply came, “None taken!” This brief banter illustrates popular scorn for belief in a 6,000-year-old world. Can recent creation sound remotely rational in a climate so soaked in millions-of-years thinking?

The 6,000-year estimate comes from counting the number of years the Bible gives between various events from creation to Christ. This view of history is called recent creation. In contrast, the world’s way of thinking denies creation from the get-go. It needs millions of years, called deep time, to imagine creatures evolving from goo to you.

Many trails lead toward recent creation. Take the limits of science, for example. Some scientists think that science can firmly answer questions about the past. But it can’t. Science directly tests only that which is observable and repeatable. History is neither. The best science can do is weed out unlikely scenarios.

For example, scientists can measure isotope ratios in a rock, but those numbers must be cranked through a formula that includes unknown, unmeasurable variables to output a time estimate. Secularists make sure those variables receive deep-time-friendly values. They assume the rock’s starting state and that no outside process tinkered with the ratio since the rock hardened long ago. Then in a crazy twist, they often invoke special starting states of rocks or outside tinkering to explain out-of-place isotope-based age estimates.1

Since science fails to pinpoint historical events, how can we know when past events happened? Simple—we consult those who were there. We read what they wrote.2 And it turns out the Bible is the ultimate history book. Not only did eyewitnesses write or help write it, but God Himself carried the prophets and apostles along as they or their associates penned the Word of God.3 Recent creation isn’t crazy. It uses the most reliable record around. Trusting in science to answer all our questions about the past is the crazy option.

Lousy logic in secular approaches to ancient history offers another trail that leads to recent creation. Deep-time defenders resort to circular arguments instead of observation. They say things like “Science has proved the Bible is wrong, so the world must be billions of years old.” Ask them what they mean by “science” and they often equate science with billions of years. Thus, they reason in a circle. It’s like saying “The world is billions of years old, therefore the world must be billions of years old.” Science cannot verify such a claim since science deals strictly with the observable here and now. Only by first refusing to include the Bible’s history do they then declare the Bible unfit to convey history. Now that’s crazy.

Besides all this, natural time clocks from many disciplines help confirm biblical creation. ICR.org has dozens of articles that describe everything from an abundance of blue stars,4 helium in minerals,5 and soft tissues in fossils,6 to a scarcity of creature mutations.7 Even these science-based observations cannot pinpoint history, but they do weed out deep-time options. Misplaced faith in science, a lack of logic in secular arguments, natural time clocks, and the very Word of the Creator all lead to recent creation.

References

Woodmorappe, J. 1999. The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research.
Thus, historians find no certain dates for events for which eyewitnesses left no documentation like court records or coins.
2 Peter 1:21.
Lisle, J. 2012. Blue Stars Confirm Recent Creation. Acts & Facts. 41 (9): 16.
Cupps, V. R. 2019. Helium Retention in Zircons Demonstrates a Young Earth. Acts & Facts. 48 (1): 10-13.
Thomas, B. 2014. Original-Tissue Fossils: Creation’s Silent Advocates. Acts & Facts. 43 (8): 5-9.
Jeanson, N. T. 2014. New Genetic-Clock Research Challenges Millions of Years. Acts & Facts. 43 (4): 5-8.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research and earned his M.S. in biotechnology from Stephen F. Austin State University.

Cite this article: Brian Thomas, M.S. 2019. Is Young Earth Creation Crazy?. Acts & Facts. 48 (2).

31 replies, 400 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Is Young Earth Creation Crazy? (Original post)
nolidad Feb 4 OP
fools_gold Feb 4 #1
rahtruelies Feb 4 #2
fools_gold Feb 4 #4
rahtruelies Feb 5 #14
nolidad Feb 5 #8
rahtruelies Feb 5 #15
SatansSon666 Feb 5 #16
MumblyPeg Feb 4 #3
SatansSon666 Feb 5 #6
nolidad Feb 5 #9
MumblyPeg Feb 5 #12
nolidad Feb 6 #17
MumblyPeg Feb 6 #19
nolidad Feb 7 #23
MumblyPeg Feb 7 #24
SatansSon666 Feb 7 #25
nolidad Feb 7 #30
SatansSon666 Feb 7 #31
SatansSon666 Feb 5 #5
Micrometer Feb 5 #7
nolidad Feb 5 #10
Micrometer Feb 5 #11
nolidad Feb 6 #18
SatansSon666 Feb 6 #20
nolidad Feb 6 #21
SatansSon666 Feb 7 #22
SatansSon666 Feb 5 #13
orson Feb 7 #26
SatansSon666 Feb 7 #27
orson Feb 7 #28
SatansSon666 Feb 7 #29

Response to nolidad (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2019, 04:57 PM

1. Yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 4, 2019, 05:24 PM

2. not crazy, but simply a failure to understand the Bible as understood by it's authors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rahtruelies (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 4, 2019, 05:29 PM

4. Drivel

"... a failure to understand the Bible as understood by it's authors."

What, exactly, does that mean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 5, 2019, 02:08 PM

14. obtuse much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rahtruelies (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 5, 2019, 07:24 AM

8. I agree with fools gold here!

What exactly does that mean? did you have an in depth conversation with the authors to learn that they did not write what they were told to?

How are we to know that you really mean what you write?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 5, 2019, 02:09 PM

15. do you understand the Bible at all beyond the snake handler level?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rahtruelies (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 5, 2019, 02:17 PM

16. He does.

He recently bragged that for $5000 and an essay he could buy his PH.D in theology.

He also says his IQ was measured by Mensa and clocks in at 162. Right up there with Einstein.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2019, 05:28 PM

3. Too much emphasis is applied to literal interpretations of The Bible.

Some stories are documentary, most are parable style or exemplum.

I believe firmly in verifiable science AND God.
Science does not discount God, it simply explains what God did, how he did it, or how he designed it.
All things including methods that are on earth for humans were provided by God, or man was given a path to it. Science is one of those things.

As far as scientific arguments lets use for example: evolution.
That mammals evolve does not disprove creation... it simply shows part of the process.
The style(s) in which The Bible is written can leave open endless interpretations... and to take the text literally is a mistake in my opinion.
Did God literally create the universe and earth in 7 days?
No. Science has show us otherwise. But I'm guessing it was done in 7 steps since The Bible tells us that it was... not to mention, the universe is a place of constant self-generation and re-creation... a self-sustaining loop of life, death, creation and destruction. We don't even know if we live on the ONLY universe.
Getting hung up on literal arguments is a non-starter. If you believe, you should have a more flexible mind when it comes to these subjects, if you are an atheist, well... most of that is simply grounded in hate, so there are few minds to be changed in that arena... at least not by another man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 5, 2019, 06:23 AM

6. Atheism isn't grounded in hate.

That's ridiculous.
Most atheists were brought up religious, examined the evidence, read and learned the bible and realized it's a load of crap, because it is. All faith based religions are, yours is no different than the others.

People who hate atheists say atheists are haters. It's called projection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 5, 2019, 07:29 AM

9. You: " Too much emphasis is applied to literal interpretations of The Bible."

Do you believe that Jesus literally died and literally rose again? If yes why do you accept this as literal and the fact that as literal and when God inspired the writers to say He created in six literal 24 hour days is non-literal?

If you were to look at how foolish the theistic evolution argument is and how both sides reject it!

Science has not even remotely proved that the enginge of evolution mutations preserved by natural selection can cause evolution. The contrary is true- they have proven repeatedly that mutations degrade creatures not improve and add new characteristics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 5, 2019, 08:18 AM

12. I'll repeat..

"Some stories are documentary, most are parable style or exemplum"

"Do you believe that Jesus literally died and literally rose again?"
Why yes, as a matter of fact, I do... since you asked.

And as I gave in examples, I also don't think every single word in The Bible was meant to be taken literally either.
Another example: I do not believe the story of Eden is 100%, word for word, a documentary of something that happened. Again, metaphors, etc etc...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 6, 2019, 07:47 AM

17. How do you know that Jesus literally died and rose again!

Why do you accept that as fact and not just a story.

Why do you reject Genesis 1 and 2 as literal? because some unbelievers suggest another history of the universe that cannot be proven?

I also do not think every word in th eBible is to be taken literally. and the passages that aren't are clearly shown by their grammar and use of comparatives!

So you reject creation and Eden. OK that is your privilege! But by what authority do you reject these as literal? What history do you rely on? Why do you reject this as literal when Jesus did not? Don't you think seeing you believe Her died and rose again His opinion should carry weight?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 6, 2019, 07:57 AM

19. Listen, I accept God on terms I am comfortable with and feel right about.

I've seen arguments with fundamentalists before, and I've no interest in participating.
I'm not screaming "convert or die", therefor I am not your concern.
You brought up the subject of science on a discussion board, I opined.
Don't agree? Cool, I can appreciate that... long as you aren't screaming "convert or die".
Bye

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 7, 2019, 07:45 AM

23. IOW

YOu are what they call a cafeteria Christian. You will decide what you want and do not want to accept . That is not a condemnation (though I do find it very erroneous), but just a statement of fact. You mold what God declares accortding to your opinion and feelings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #23)

Thu Feb 7, 2019, 07:55 AM

24. You know, that's a pretty shitty thing to say about anyone.

Quite frankly, we are supposed to be a stewards of Gods word and not go around using it to insult other people. It's your job to promote it and present it in a favorable fashion as it was meant, not be a jackass and turn people instantly away from it with statements like that.

I'm a Christian, and a pretty lousy example too as I have always admitted. But what I'm not doing is using it to make damn sure people are turned away like you are.
I might consider myself a bad example, but I consider you an actual net negative because of the way you present it. And that is not my opinion, that is you specifically committed to doing the exact opposite that the word has taught us.
I believe in and Trust God. I thank him very day for my life and everything he has given my family. You? You are participating in your own little chasm of identity classification and using it to insult other people. People like you actually turn people away from God.
I'm done talking to you about it, you make us all look bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 7, 2019, 08:24 AM

25. He says a lot of shitty things about other Christians.

He's deluded himself into believing he has all the answers and knows the absolute truth.
When he rags on atheists and says they are all in or destined for hell, nobody really minds.
When he chastises other Christians for not being as smart and good as he is, it upsets them where as atheists just laugh at how ridiculous he is.

You can't tell a young earth creationist anything. Look at some of his posts in science and tell me he's playing with a clear and opened mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 7, 2019, 07:10 PM

30. I am sorry if you are offended.

But you said it yourself--we are to be stewards of Gods Word and not arbiters to decide what we will and will not accept!

If you love Jesus as I believe you do- then why do you reject His Words when he declared Adam and Eve the beginning of Mankind and verified Noah as existing and the flood as taking place.

Do you realize that by relegating Genesis 1 and 2 as story- you destroy the whole reason why Jesus became man? He came to earth to die for the sin that Adam brought to the world!

Now we have to say Jesus was just story telling and then the apostle Paul was story telling.

No we are to accept the word as written. It is filled with allegories, but they clearly are identified by language not just because they are inconvenient to accept!

You may consider me a bad example (as the religious crowd did to Paul and Jesus and legions of others who hold the word in truth), but I will let teh the thousands I led to Christ as a jail chaplain and th elioves turned around there, The people saved on mission trips to China, Argentina, Israel and New Mexico with the Peublo Indians.

I will le tthe thousands of students I have taught over the decades in Adult studies that now are leaders .

If God said He created the universe and all in it in six literal days (as the language in Genesis says) we should accept that despite what the unbelieving world thinks.

The week is the only measurement based on the fact that God created the world in six days!

When we who call Jesus Savior alter the word to appease the worlds opinions- we do them a disservice and sin against God and His Word!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #30)

Thu Feb 7, 2019, 07:42 PM

31. Non-apology and self-righteous rant.

Sorry IF I offended you isn't an apology.
Sorry THAT I offended you is correct.

Then you go on about yourself even so far as to compare yourself to Jesus.

At least you admit that to you, the whole thing falls to shit without Genesis. That's why you have to cling so hard and spout anti-science and brag about your travels to bother people about Jesus.
If Genesis isn't true, your whole life and identity go down the drain with it.
Well, it isn't true. That's a fucking fact.

Truly one of your best, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2019, 06:13 AM

5. The idea is ridiculous.

That doesn't mean creationists are crazy.
They are just brainwashed into thinking the bible is literal. They are told they are smarter than scientists. They are told that the Bible says people will think they are crazy and then when people say they are crazy they use it as proof of the bible, which is illogical.

Also, providing an article written by an ICR loon asking the question if he is crazy might be a little biased.

Denying the abundance of evidence for an old earth and evolution is delusional, not necessarily crazy.
The whole thing is based of a fucking moron who took the word of some guy adding up the lineages in the bible snd coming to the conclusion that the earth is around 6000 years old. Based off the bible, which fails every single testable claim it makes.
You don't have to be crazy to be a creationist, you don't even have to be Christian. There are a lot of other religions that believe in creation.
Believing a delusion doesn't necessarily make you crazy. Billions of people believe in religious delusions like the flood, the Jesus and Moses stories, muhammad, Vishnu, Joseph Smith, Charles Russell, etc. It doesn't make them crazy. It's just what they were taught to believe and it became a part of their identity and they just cannot open their eyes and realize that God isn't necessary or even possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2019, 07:20 AM

7. Young Earth Creation Is Not Crazy. Young Earth Creation Is Not Science.



You have asserted: "empirical repeatable observable science
lends far more support to the creation worldview."

Please, in a few paragraphs, summarize your best evidence supporting creationism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 5, 2019, 07:36 AM

10. Easy:

Comets are too young

Spiral universes are winding too rapidly

Fossils die and buried in cataclysmic events (like a flood)

Floods lay down enormous amounts of sedimentary layers in a short period of time

Floods lay down fossils by "eco-spheres" in ascending order.

All testable repeatable historic and observable datas shows animals behave according to scripture

Each of these come with reams of research but you asked for summations.

All these are verified observed phenomena.

Now show me in summation verified observed phenomena giving scientific credence to Darwinian evolution or Big E evolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 5, 2019, 07:42 AM

11. None from that list suggest a young earth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 6, 2019, 07:52 AM

18. Well here is the ugly truth for you!

1. You would need to read why they do suggest a young earth!

2. By showing the falseness of the old earth proponents and their "evidence" we shatter the only other accepted hypothesis outside of the Bible telling what actually happened as told by
God who was there and decided to inform man that He created in 6 literal days approx 6-10K years ago!

All I listed do suggest a young earth.

Also not enough salt in the ocean

Too much helium in rocks

Viable soft tissue in dinos

Soft carbon remains in coal seams alleged to be hundreds of millions of years.

Proof that oil can be made in days

Diamonds can be made in years not eons.


a recorded family tree that dates back to the first person.

What verifiable evidence do you offer for a 4.5 billion year old earth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 6, 2019, 08:49 AM

20. Ugly truth?

There is no truth in that. At all.

1. How much salt should be the oceans?
Even if we could measure the total amount of ions in the oceans there is nothing saying any of them increase or decrease st a contact rate. Nobody except the loons try to use salinity or sodium ions in the oceans as a gauge for the age of the earth. You must also assume god created the oceans with no salt in them and there is no way for you to know that.

2. Too much helium in rocks. What rocks? Are you talking about the loon Humphrey's zircons? Completely debunked and easily explained, but we all know you won't take the time to research anything past ICR so again, you're stuck in the dark.

3. There is no viable soft tissue in dinosaur bones. That is a complete lie and fabrication. You are only perpetuating a blatant lie that even the person that discovered it, a devout Christian, says is a lie put out by creationists who do not understand anything about her work or her discovery. You ignore her and believe the loons.

4. Carbon13 in coal in explained by the decay of uranium and other radioactive elements close by decaying the carbon in the coal. All explained easily and simple to understand. For anyone that really wants to know, obviously not you.

4 and 5. You simply do not understand any of those 2 things enough to be able to make that claim. You don't understand how and why you are wrong and the loons love that.

6. The biblical "family tree" is a load of bullshit. Genetics tells us that there was never a first man and first woman. The same way you can prove you sre the father of your kids. We know this. It's proven.

So blind and deluded by the loons that even your huge 162 iq (lol) can't see pad their lies.
Poor nolidad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 6, 2019, 07:50 PM

21. Now let us look at the scientific claims of some of the events of Genesis 1-11

We shall use the bible as a hypothesis.

Each reproducing after its kind! Now how would we go about to study this and see if it is a viable hypothesis and then a valid theory.
1. Search creatures and study their reproduction and log any significant genetic changes that would alter the creature from what it is

2. Problem-- variation. We see within "kinds" an ability for variation (speciation) but our research shows us that what started as a dog, ended as a dog! Despite massive experimentation on genetically "simple" creatures, after all sorts of experimentation and induced mutations- they all remained the same kind (fruit flies are still fruit flies)

Result valid theory!

3. World wide flood that destroyed all life on earth save the inhabitants in the ark.

What should we expect to find if this hypothesis has any validity.

1. Sedimentary layers globally.
2. A general pattern of fossils laid down. (as each ecosphere was destroyed it would lay down fossils with each new ecoisphere laying higher orders as animals would flee th oncoming floods)
3. We should expect to find massive carbon deposits in teh form of oil, coal and gas. Floods coagulate dead things into masses And in a world that was lush , and loaded with flora and fauna globally we would expect to find mountains of coal, lakes of oil and massive fossil burial grounds.

This is exactly what we find!

Now demonstrate how mutations preserved through natural selection have caused life to go from molecules to man!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 7, 2019, 04:43 AM

22. Wrong.

Always wrong.

Dogs produce dogs.
Exactly what evolution suggests.

Speciation is evolution in action. It is proof of evolution. You can call it whatever you want. It's evolution.

A flood would lay down one layer. One thick layer of a jumbled mess. It would not lay down separate layers all with their own unique sets of fossils that do not appear in any other layer. You can test it in a bucket. Only a loon would believe that a global flood could lay down all the layers in the geologic column the way we observe it. Only a loon would lie and jump through the hoops required to believe and promote such nonsense.
A flood would not create oil from dead creatures in a couple of thousand years.
Don't be so ridiculous.
Unbelievable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 5, 2019, 11:04 AM

13. Wrong.

On everything.
Just plain wrong.

Comets are not too young. New comets are arriving all the time. This is known, just the loons would prefer you took their version because they need it.

Spiral galaxies are well understood, how and why they are the shapes they are in. Only the loons don't understand it and they want to make sure you don't understand it.

Cataclysms have fuck all to do with fossil formation. How fossils are formed is well known, only the loons don't want you to understand it because they don't either.
Fossil footprints of extinct creatures found in riverbanks. Explain how extinct creatures are able to make footprints in the mud after the flood.

Floods do not lay down creatures in ascending order. Floods mix and jumble everything up. That is easily observable and testable. You can even test it yourself in your back yard. To say that the flood laid down single celled animals, then ascending order through stratum all the way to modern animals without ONE FUCKING ANIMAL CROSSING OVER is fucking ridiculous.

Animals behave according to scripture. Whales eat people and let them live in their stomachs? Bats are birds? Insects have 4 legs? Donkeys can talk, snakes can talk..
Lmao.. gimme a fucking break.

Also, none of those things, even if they were true (they aren't ) wouldn't be a single solitary piece of evidence for a young earth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 7, 2019, 01:08 PM

26. Have you ever paused to reflect

that the time spent arguing with loonies might be better deployed watching Bugs Bunny cartoons or getting mind numbingly drunk? Nothing you put out there is going to alter Nolidad's world view. As a hobby, debating creationists and climate deniers is a futile enterprise that just gives them a platform to catapult their propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #26)

Thu Feb 7, 2019, 01:12 PM

27. I know it's futile.

I know he'll never change his mind. I dont care if he does either.
I stopped replying to him a couple of times, plus he has me on ignore but I just can't let that shit stand in the science category.
Fuck that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 7, 2019, 01:54 PM

28. Alert on it

Category error.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #28)

Thu Feb 7, 2019, 05:01 PM

29. I don't think that's an option for alerting.

Even if it is, I won't alert on it.
It'll just give him something else to go on about.
Evil atheists trying to silence the good Christian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience