Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Arguments for/against young earth creationism

78 replies

sp1ders · 16/05/2024 12:03

Anyone here believe in young earth creationism? What are the arguments for and against?

(I'm a Christian and genuinely interested, please don't turn this into an atheist dominated fight opportunity. I'd like mutually respectful discussion) 😊

OP posts:
DeanElderberry · 17/05/2024 21:03

There's a stronghold of young earth creationists in Northern Ireland - remember Edwin Poots, briefly the leader of the DUP. They get upset about science teaching, and briefly managed to bully the National Trust into including a creationist perspective in signage at the Giant's Causeway.

https://www.historyireland.com/big-questions-at-the-giants-causeway/

Creationist theory is a product of the early modern historic period - no-one took the bible literally in that way in the medieval period, and neither the Orthodox nor the Catholic church do now. Nor, of course, do most of the protestant churches.

Blahdymcblahdyface · 17/05/2024 22:18

Anyone who thinks humans could coexist with T Rex’s needs a lobotomy

Pocketfullofdogtreats · 17/05/2024 23:17

CurlewKate · 17/05/2024 18:29

@Pocketfullofdogtreats Yes-but that's not what Young Earth Creationists believe....they believe in a literal 7 days. And that the earth is (I think) 6000 years old.

Yes, I know. I didn't think I needed to say that those beliefs are ridiculous. I'm saying you can choose to believe the biblical account without having to accept that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Greatbritish · 18/05/2024 10:44

Try this website. From what I recall, the argument is basically science states something is true because of a test of an assumption. That assumption is based on another test of an assumption. Therefore the first test is proved. Both assumptions assume old earth, therefore its not a fair test. Some sort of cyclical argument like that.

answersingenesis.org/

pointythings · 18/05/2024 19:00

@Greatbritish the hardcore young earth fundamentalist types really don't understand how science works. Because they need to misrepresent it for their arguments to function.

EducatingArti · 18/05/2024 19:09

If you are interested in a different view of Genesis that accepts modern scientific views but is also faithful to the Biblical text, putting it in the cultural context of the time it was written, I would recommend this book.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-World-Genesis-One/dp/0830837043

It isn't an easy read particularly. It uses lots of theological words I had to look up, but I found it encouraging and intriguing!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-World-Genesis-One/dp/0830837043?tag=mumsnet&ascsubtag=mnforum-philosophy-religion-spirituality-5076344-arguments-foragainst-young-earth-creationism

HowardTJMoon · 18/05/2024 21:57

Greatbritish · 18/05/2024 10:44

Try this website. From what I recall, the argument is basically science states something is true because of a test of an assumption. That assumption is based on another test of an assumption. Therefore the first test is proved. Both assumptions assume old earth, therefore its not a fair test. Some sort of cyclical argument like that.

answersingenesis.org/

My irony meter just about exploded when you realise that Answers in Genesis explicitly admit that their worldview is based entirely on the Bible.
As Ken Ham says on that very website, "The Bible is divinely inspired, inerrant, infallible, supremely authoritative, and sufficient in everything it teaches. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science".
Or, to put it another way, if there's anything in reality that contradicts the Bible, Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis will assume the Bible's true and that reality is wrong.

DeanElderberry · 19/05/2024 06:27

Which ignores the fact that the Old Testament is full of internal contradictions, that Genesis is myth and that some of the prophetic and wisdom texts make it clear that they understand God as being something with a relationship with time completely different from anything perceived by humans.

One of the things I hate about young earth creationism is that it insults the Bible and the intelligence of those who wrote it and use it.

YAC is a purity test.

IHaveaDreamaSongtoSing · 20/05/2024 15:00

I'm a Christian who believes the Bible is the written word of God, but not that the earth is 6000 years old or that the dinosaurs were made up. However, I do believe in a literal garden of Eden and that humans were created by God separately, rather than descending from apes.

I don't think it's wise to put a time frame on the creation narrative in Genesis. God's on His own incomprehensible time frame, as the Bible quote "one day is as a thousand years with the Lord" infers.

The way I see it is what's written in Genesis 1 and what we now know of the origins of life from scientific research don't necessarily need to be in conflict. For example:

(From the Huffington Post - edited for length)

Genesis: (First day) -- 15 billion to 4.5 billion years ago
"In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth."
Science
At some point in the history of time between, 9 and 15 billion years ago, the origins of the universe began. There was absolutely nothing but emptiness, when suddenly an infinitely hot and dense spot called the singularity appeared. From that spot there was an unimaginable gigantic explosion, called the Big Bang, and within less than a fraction of a second, the entire universe was formed. This was the start of everything that exists -- matter, energy, time and every atom that was ever created. The sun and earth itself were estimated to have been formed about 4.5 billion years ago.

Genesis: (First day)
"God said, 'Let there be light.'"
Science:
During the Big Bang, electrons caused very small packets of light making the whole universe glow.
The sun was formed 4.5 billion years ago along with the Earth.
So the start of the universe and then the start of the sun and Earth on the first day of Genesis definitely coincide with contemporary science.

Genesis: (Second day) -- 4.5 billion to 3.75 billion years ago
"God said, 'Let there be firmament in the midst of the waters and let it separate the waters from the waters.'"
Science:
Water-rich asteroids and protoplanets collided with prehistoric earth, bringing water. Later, gaseous emissions from volcanoes added additional water. This occurred approximately 4.4 billion years ago. Over the next several billion years, as the earth cooled, water vapor began to escape and condense in the earth's early atmosphere. Clouds formed and enormous amounts of water fell on the earth. The waters were separated, water on earth and water in the atmosphere. So day two fits with science and is in the correct order.

Genesis: (Third day) -- 3.75 billion years ago
"And God said, 'Let the waters under the Heaven be gathered together in one place and let the dry land appear.'"
Science:
The beginning of the oceans and the separation of the land mass areas occurred on Earth about 3.75 billion years ago. Again, it fits with science and is in the right order.

Genesis: (Third day)
"And God said, 'Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed and fruit trees bearing fruit.'"
Science:
This section of Genesis' third day is out of sequence. Plants, grass, and fruit bearing trees, did not appear until after sea creatures. Although microscopic single cell algae (bacteria or archaea microbes) are a plant and appeared at this time, it is not the advanced forms of plant life described in Genesis. Again, the appearance of flora did not take place at this time according to contemporary science.

Genesis: (Fourth day)
"And God said. 'Let there be light in the firmament of Heavens to separate the day from the night.'"
Science:
This phrase is confusing because the Sun's creation was earlier, so why is light mentioned here? There is nothing to compare here between Genesis and science. The open question is why light is repeated on day four.
There are a number of theories to explain this. One is by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D., a professor of nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences at MIT who spent five years on the staff of the MIT physics department. He is also a lecturer in science and spirituality. He contends that the sun, the moon, and the stars were already there but that the atmosphere was opaque. With the cooling of the Earth and the rise in atmospheric oxygen, the atmosphere became transparent, and there was light.
Another interesting theory is presented by Dr. Alan Parker, a respected evolutionary biologist and research fellow at Oxford University. He speculates that this second reference to light on day four of Genesis refers to the evolution of vision. If there was no vision, then there was, in a sense, no light. So the lights were "turned on" in the evolution of sight in animals. "To separate day from night" refers to the time before and after sight.

Genesis: (Fifth day) -- 3.5 billion years to 635 million years ago
"And God said, 'Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures. Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas...'"
Science:
This is exactly what happened. Life began in the sea. The earliest fossils of life, single-celled bacteria, are found in ancient rocks deposited in the oceans 3.5 billion years ago. By 1.2 billion years ago, the first complex multicellular life had evolved. The oldest evidence of full animal life in the oceans comes from about 635 million years ago.

Genesis: (Fifth day)
"'...and let the birds fly above the earth.'"
Science:
According to contemporary science, this is out of sequence. Birds did not appear until later. However, flying insects did appear at this time, and this could be a remote but possible explanation.

Genesis: (Sixth day) -- 250 million to about 6000 years ago
"And God said, 'Let the Earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind; cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kind.'"
Science:
This is exactly as science reports: life began in the water and then expanded onto land.

Genesis: (Sixth day)
"Then God created man in his own image...Male and female created He them...And God formed man of the dust of the ground...He took one of Adam's ribs and made a woman."
Science:
Nothing in this section resembles science at all. The only correct thing is that man was at the end of the chain of life. One coincidence that has been noted is that just as Adam's rib was used to form another person, Eve, the first life forms, single-cell organisms, divided to form other single-cell organisms. Admittedly, this is a stretch.

Genesis: (Sixth day)
"God said, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth and subdue it and have domination over fish of the sea and over birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the Earth.'"
Science:
It is obvious that today, man does have domination over every fish, every bird, and every living thing that moves across the Earth. Genesis was right: man dominates the Earth.

When Genesis was written about 4000 years ago, humans were almost universally illiterate. The alphabet was being perfected, writing (not hieroglyphics) was still new, calendars were still not perfected, and books and paper didn't even exist.
But nevertheless, the writers of the Bible somehow figured out that creation occurred first with the universe, then the Earth, then light, then water, then land rising out of the water to separate land and sea, all in the proper order according to contemporary science.
Then, most amazingly of all, these ancient Hebrew scholars and Old Testament writers figured out, in accordance with modern science, that the origins of life started in the water. Scientific information on the subject was not developed until over 3500 years later.
The beginnings of earth and life as reported by Genesis correspond very closely with current scientific knowledge.

Blahdymcblahdyface · 20/05/2024 19:41

There was no garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve , and we share a common ancestor with modern apes

pointythings · 20/05/2024 19:50

However, I do believe in a literal garden of Eden and that humans were created by God separately, rather than descending from apes.

You've clearly misunderstood the theory of evolution - it does not say humans descended from apes.

HowardTJMoon · 20/05/2024 20:57

The beginnings of earth and life as reported by Genesis correspond very closely with current scientific knowledge.

Genesis only corresponds to contemporary science if you engage in some serious cherry-picking to outright ignore big chunks of the text, and/or to engage in some wildly speculative apologetics.

Eg, the Bible says that the heavens and the earth were created before the "let there be light". So the "light" could not have referred to the Big Bang. It very clearly says that life started on the land ("Let the land produce vegetation; seed-bearing plants and trees") long before it says that God created life in the seas. Plus, of course, the whole bird thing - I would assume that even the ancient Hebrews could tell the difference between a bird and an insect, even if they were a bit more confused about bats.

As for humans having dominion over all living things - try entering a locked room with a tiger. Or infecting yourself with malaria. How well do you think your dominance would go?

IHaveaDreamaSongtoSing · 21/05/2024 14:51

Eg, the Bible says that the heavens and the earth were created before the "let there be light". So the "light" could not have referred to the Big Bang.

@HowardTJMoon No it doesn't, it says - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
It's a statement that at an unspecified time, God created everything. Then it goes on to give the order in which that happened.

As for humans having dominion over all living things - try entering a locked room with a tiger. Or infecting yourself with malaria. How well do you think your dominance would go?

Well, to be fair much of the world does seem to be run by chimps. 😏

There was no garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve , and we share a common ancestor with modern apes.

In your opinion. @Blahdymcblahdyface

Every human alive today is related:

(DNA Diagnostics Centre)
The concept of the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) provides insight into how closely related all humans are.
According to some geneticists, the MRCA is the most recent individual from whom all people in a given population are direct descendants. Some studies suggest that the MRCA of all modern humans may have lived just a few thousand years ago. This suggestion doesn’t mean there was only one human alive at that time, but that this individual is the most recent person to be a direct ancestor of everyone alive today.
Within the realm of genetic research, two key figures emerge: Y-Chromosomal "Adam" and Mitochondrial "Eve". These individuals are not the first humans but rather the most recent common paternal and maternal ancestors. With their existence proven by modern DNA analysis, it supports the hypothesis that all humans alive today are related in some capacity.
Whether you look at your ancestry using DNA testing, dive into the research around the Most Recent Common Ancestor, or examine historical migrations, the evidence points to the fact that all humans are part of a complex web of relationships. While modern interpretations of a relative are associated with much more immediate family, every person’s lineage stretches back thousands of years and intersect at some point in the past.

You've clearly misunderstood the theory of evolution - it does not say humans descended from apes.

Please expand. @pointythings

BedDepartment · 21/05/2024 15:00

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

IHaveaDreamaSongtoSing · 21/05/2024 15:18

Oh look, I think we've found the amoeba!

Treaclewell · 21/05/2024 15:54

Having studied Earth Sciences (along with one student who was a YEC and said she would lie to get the qualification) I tend towards an old Earth interpretation. Haven't seen any convincing evidence for youth.
But the terrible thing about YECs is that they believe that God is a liar, like that student. Building into the creation countless evidences that would lead serious scientists, who search for truth, into believing the divine lies. So there's only 2% difference between the DNA of bonobos and Homo sapiens, for instance. If we are supposed to believe a unique separate creation, why not have no overlap at all, instead of that evidence of a common ancestor.
As a Christian, to be required to believe that God lies is impossible, that creation was carried out with the appearance of age, as a sort of infinite model railway layout, and the intention of misleading God's children is beyond belief.

HowardTJMoon · 21/05/2024 16:36

IHaveaDreamaSongtoSing No it doesn't, it says - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. It's a statement that at an unspecified time, God created everything. Then it goes on to give the order in which that happened.

That would only be plausible if you completely ignore the next few sentences. Genesis 1:1 - 4 says:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

That makes it clear that the earth was in existence - albeit formless, empty and dark - before "Let there be light".

I find these kinds of post-hoc revisionist apologetics unconvincing. If scientists had come along and said "You know, we've got evidence that at the moment of the beginning of the universe it was somewhat water-like" then we'd have theologians going "See! Genesis 1 mentions water right at the beginning! Weren't those ancient Hebrews clever to have known that!"

pointythings · 21/05/2024 16:57

@IHaveaDreamaSongtoSing having looked up Most Recent Common Ancestor, this suggests that mitochondrial Eve would have lived up to 200,000 years ago. Not a few thousand, really.

And then there is the fact, pointed out above, that we share 98% of our DNA with bonobos. Why therefore the insistence that we humans must have been created completely separately from apes? We share the vast majority of our DNA with them; it isn't scientifically plausible that we were created separatly from everything else by a deity who was happy to leave everything else to evolution. There's a 'we're so special' arrogance in that which is really a bit distasteful.

Waffleson · 21/05/2024 17:08

Are you British OP? This is a mainly UK site so you will struggle to find anyone who believes in young earth. It’s more an American thing.

pointythings · 21/05/2024 17:36

The other problem I have with YEC (aside from its utter refusal to accept established science whilst not providing any plausible alternative theories backed up by research) is that it nearly always comes with a lot of awful attitudes towards women and their place, their fertility, their independence, and also towards people who are not heterosexual. It's an awful cult.

DeanElderberry · 21/05/2024 17:36

Not true Waffleson, there's quite a lot of it in the more extreme protestant community in Northern Ireland. Edwin Poots and Sammy Wilson are not the only ones.

IHaveaDreamaSongtoSing · 21/05/2024 18:07

Yes, British
Not a Young Earth Creationist
We also share 98% of our DNA with pigs

pointythings · 21/05/2024 18:40

IHaveaDreamaSongtoSing · 21/05/2024 18:07

Yes, British
Not a Young Earth Creationist
We also share 98% of our DNA with pigs

None of that explains why you want humans to somehow have a completely separate creation. If it's good enough for pigs, or chimps, it's good enough for me. To want special treatment feels arrogant to me.

Treaclewell · 22/05/2024 07:48

There are YECs over here. One I knew, a teacher, turned up at a day course at Darwin College Canterbury and distributed pamphlets which the lecturers had to address. He believed he was saving people from hell. All I could do was tell him that God did not take my beliefs a a reason for not communicating in my prayer life. He must have had a supportive community somewhere. And then there were the parents who wanted me to agree not to teach evolution to their child. Mormons, I think.

Thegreatestoftheseislove · 23/05/2024 21:51

I believe that the Lord God Almighty created the heavens and earth and everything in it; that humankind started with 'Adam' and 'Eve'. I'm really not bothered as to the time frame. To me, the most important thing is my life, now, and how I live in my little part of the universal vastness, for this nano-second (relatively speaking) of life that the Lord has given to me. It prevents a lot of brain-ache.