Best positive scientific evidence of a young earth?

[roblaine]

I know that a lot of people look down on Kent Hovind - and it's true that his method of teaching is a little irritating at times. But if you've ever heard the "Hovind Theory" - I think it makes a lot of sense. It may not be true, but then again, it does seem to explain alot that would otherwise be a little hard to figure out.

I've listened to almost everything Kent Hovind has produced, and I agree with you regarding the Hovind Theory. It is funny how those who dislike Kent, and his ministry, rarely bother to address his arguments or scientific theories, and simply focus on discrediting him personally.

Robin

[anochria]

Well, having watched a whole video series of his, I would say it is really hard to look past the pompous exterior

Still, agreed, that doesn't have much bearing on the truth of a matter.

[anochria]

It's ALL evidence. It's a mistake to think of it as 2 groups trying to find their own pieces of evidence and that is why this thread is sort of strange to respond to in some ways. YEC's, OEC's & Naturalists all look and utilize the exact same evidence. Take geology, for instance, we all make the same observations. The difference is that OEC's & Naturalists explain the appearance of the earth by extremely long periods of time whereas YEC's explain the appearance of the earth by an extremely catastrophic flood. OEC's and Naturalists categorically reject a worldwide flood.

Granted, all evidence points to the truth ultimately. However, what I'm getting at is evidence that would lead one to conclude that the earth is young (and not merely evidence that throws the question of age into doubt).

There is of course a potential danger on both sides that one reads their presuppositions into the evidence. Still, evidence can change one's stance on issues such as this, wouldn't you agree? It did for me.

And if we accept that evidence can change one's perspective, why is it that even John Morris, head of ICR (along with other prominent YE advocates) admitted that he was not aware of even one scientist who had become convinced of a young earth by the scientific evidence alone? Shouldn't the truth be speaking for itself a bit more, ala Psalm 19, without required theological bias to give it a boost?

Lastly, what do you mean by "categorically"? That sounds like you're saying they reject a worldwide flood without even appealing to evidence, which would definitely not be true.

The former groups needs to present some reasons why they are dismissing the historical record of the flood that exists not only in the Bible but in various ancient cultures from around the world

Who said the historical account of the Flood is being dismissed? Progressive creationist don't dismiss it.

Homer and Aaron- thanks for your comments, but on this thread I'm less interested in the "poking holes in the OE theory" and more interested in hearing what scientific evidence would lead you to conclude that the earth is young.

Jill- in your view, how does the quality of our atmosphere indicate a young earth?

[AaronBDisney]

Aaron- thanks for your comments, but on this thread I'm less interested in the "poking holes in the OE theory" and more interested in hearing what scientific evidence would lead you to conclude that the earth is young.

I understand that, but if the Bible seems to indicate that the earth is no more than a few thousand years old, then poking holes in the old earth theory brings credibility to the BIble, as if it needed it.

Consider this, strictly from the Bible.....

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

He made ALL there is...in HEAVEN, in the EARTH, in the SEA...That includes stars, planets, moons, humans, etc. etc. etc. All this was in six days! It's in the context of resting on the seventh day after six days of work. If you consider the days of Genesis 1 different eras that were possibly millions of years, you'd have plants without the sun for millions of years and without insects to pollenate them. Plus you'd have Adam living partly through the sixth day and all the way through the seventh day making him possibly millions of years old before he died, contradicting Genesis 5:5 (he was 930 when he died).

If the Bible is not deceptive, God created the earth on day 1 - Adam less than a week later - and Adam died when he was 930 years old. Unless there are massive gaps in genealogies in the Bible, the earth could not possibly be more than a few thousand years old. I will admit there are probably gaps in the genealogies but not the size that we'd need to harmonize the Bible with what many scientists say about earth age.

Have you considered the magenetic field's decline. It has never been observed to increase in intensity worldwide, but they claim that is going through reversals. If you increase it backward through time at the rate it's decreasing now, the earth would have not been able to sustain life because of its intensity not even 100,000 years ago.

The earth is spinning at the equator at the rate of around 1000 mph, but it is slowing down at the rate of about one second per year. This is not a problem whatsoever if the earth is only 10,000 years old or so, but if it's billions of years old it would have been spinning out of control creating insane winds due to the Coreolis effect and unable to sustain life.

I know this argument must make some major assumptions. For instance - we don't know that the earth has always been slowing down at that rate, but it has been as long as they've been measuring it. But another person will use the speed of light and star distance as an argument for an Old Earth and we don't know that the speed of light has always been a constant.

There are simply gonna be some assumptions made on either side of the argument. The thing I feel most comfortable doing is, looking at the Bible to see if it indicates anything one way or another. It is my belief that it does and it is my belief that the evidence they find is consistent with a major catastrophe (the flood) and with a young earth.

[anochria]

Aaron, thanks for the response.

I'm heading out camping with the family, but I hope to respond next week. You bring up the question of whether the Bible necessarily supports a YE position, which I'd like to respond to.

But before I provide some of the biblical interpretation for the OE position, I'm curious about a statement by Steve on the "Why I think" thread that I think is pertinent here:

As a private Christian, free to think for myself, I have the tentative opinion that the Bible and scientific evidence may best be understood in the young-earth manner. If proof to the contrary is ever discovered, I shall not be embarrassed, and will not have brought the Bible into disrepute.

Steve, if "proof" of a old earth became apparent to you, why don't you think it would have brought the Bible into disrepute. That seems to mean that you see a least a decent biblical case for an OE.

[steve]

I don't think the Bible concerns itself directly with the question of the time when creation took place. I think that the simplest understanding of Genesis 1 places the creation of the world and of the universe in the same week as the creation of human beings. The latter appear to have been created only a few thousand years ago.

On the other hand, there are interpretive considerations that may be concealed from us, and which might only become evident when facts from other fields clarify the issues. Some of these considerations would be:

1. The question of whether the six creation days were actually consecutive days, or whether they were simply individual creation increments that may have been separated by unmentioned epochs;

2. While I believe that the evidence supports the days of Genesis being 24-hour days, there remains the possibility that they may not have been;

3. The human race could have been here much longer, if the names in the genealogies, in Genesis 5 (and 11) were not to be understood as individuals merely, but as tribal heads—who did not live hundreds of years, but whose tribal societies did.

These factors, if present, are by nature hidden in the narrative. They may be present, but until there is compelling reason to force me to see them there, I prefer to go with the simplest interpretation that the evidence can support.