Scientific and Theological Proofs for a Young Earth?

This morning, I received the following email in response to a recent comment I made at this YEC blog (see also the last several comments of this post on my own blog):

First of all concerning your thesis about young earth is based solely on the Scripture. Absolutely untrue my friend. The 1/2 life of Carbon 14, the amount of salt input vs. the amount of salt outake [sic] in the oceans, the decreasing strength of the magnetic field of the earth on which we live, among many other proofs point to an earth considerably less than billions of years old. As far as the Mars environment is concerned, there is zero proof that life exists or has ever existed on mars. Why? The atmosphere is fatal to life, the same amosphere [sic] (not that of Mars) but jus [sic] as fatal according to secular scientist existed on the earth.

Also I know that many people try and discount the fact of irreducible complexity. Yet no good evidence has ever been brought against this solid scientific theory.

“For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.” Romans 8:20-22. This is a result of the cosmic curse brought on by God as the contex [sic] clearly says.

“Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field.” (Genesis 3:17-18) This is the cosmic curse when sin entered the world and now the world (as we clearly see) suffers.

I’ve already responded privately, but I wanted to give my readers an opportunity to respond as well. All are welcome to respond to the scientific aspects of this individual’s claims, but I ask that only theists respond to his theological claims for a young earth.

8 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

8 Responses to Scientific and Theological Proofs for a Young Earth?

  1. Natural Selection as coined by the evolutionist is the process that removes qualities that are less favorable for the conditions and as a result new spieces are formed.
    Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes. Over time, this process may result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution may take place within a given population of organisms.

    Never have we seen in the fossil record or from the naked eye emergence of new species. http://www.icr.org/natural-selection/ The battle for truth is still being waged

  2. Anonymous

    Evolution is the change in the frequency of gene alleles over time. Both natural selection and genetic drift enable a change in an organism to occur. This process doen’t concern itself with speciation or in other words it has no preference as to what the end result is. The micro and macro division is an arbitrary line conceived by man, but again the gene justs plugs along,slowly varying and could care less what the end result is.Dont believe it has a turn off spiget that stops short of speciation. Its not discriminatory. This thought that we havent seen the emrgence of a new species in the fossil record depends on what you’re looking for. Yes its true, we wont find a bird with a mammal head or a reptile with feathers -whoops this one has been found in several species Brian

  3. The claim about Irreducible Complexity coming from a YEC is interesting on many levels.

    First, its primary proponent, Michael Behe, accepts an old earth (4.55 billion years) and universe (13.7 billion years), and he accepts the framework of Darwinism. So the argument of I.C. has no bearing upon the YEC versus evolution discussion.

    Second, he will unlikely find no agreement with his premise outside of the YEC circle and Intelligent Design circle. It only persuades those predisposed to believe in Special Creationism. Secular scientist all disagree as do many believing scientists.

    Just this morning I read an article by Francisco Ayala, a Christian professor of evolutionary biology and genetics at UC Irvine in which he states the following: “When people ask about the bacterial flagellum … I bring up that by now it has been worked out in great detail how the basic parts of the bacterial flagellum have evolved independently and exist independently.” The bacterial flagellum, perhaps the best example of so-called irreducible complexity, no longer has any evidentiary power (if it ever did) according to this believing scientist.

  4. As for the theological argument, it is difficult to back up scientifically. We have no evidence that this cosmos ever existed without the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, or entropy. In other words, all those conditions alluded to in Romans 8 and in Genesis 3 have always existed according to all evidence (including literally mountains of pre-human fossils). The current state of astrophysics places the onset of entropy (and thus, decay) very early in the first second of cosmic history. There may be some “retroactive” responsibility upon late-blooming humankind for death and decay in our cosmos, but there exists mountains of evidence that death and decay predate mankind. We must not build our doctrine of the Bible and our theology upon presumptions which are soundly countermanded by clear evidence.

  5. Hey Mike,

    You could tell him to go check out Beyond Creation Science at http://www.beyondcreationscience.com!

    We actually deal with his Romans 8 issue in the context of covenant creation. The beginning and the end match.

    Blessings,

    Tim Martin
    co-author, Beyond Creation Science

  6. “The decreasing strength of the magnetic field of the earth”

    In “Finding’s Darwin’s God” Miller says that he brought this argument to a geologist who explained it as a waxing and waning phenomenon. Apparently, little bits of metal in rock layers line up toward the magnetic field, and the various strata have shone that these metals have changed directions many times.

  7. Thomas,

    Re: the earth’s magnetic field (and other such phenomena that YECs use in their arguments) …

    I find it ironic that they appeal to uniformitarianism to disprove what they identify as uniformitarian principles within the secular sciences. What?!?!

    And then there’s the long list of rates that they use to “prove” a young earth (e.g., salt in the ocean, earth’s magnetic field, moon dust, etc.) that continues to be propagated throughout YEC literature with nary an explanation as to why their own research doesn’t add up to the earth having only been around for 6000-10000 years. What?!?!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.