Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Do you believe the Young Earth Theory?

Do you believe that the earth is really only 6,000 to 10,000 years old? If so, how do you explain all the scientific data that points to the earth being much, much, much older? How do you explain the dinosaurs? Mountains? The Grand Canyon? The Ancient civilizations? And if you believe that the scientists are wrong, please keep in mind that these are the same scientists that are making your medicines, MRI machines, chemotherapy, automobiles, cell phones, computer chips, video games, and the list goes on and on. So if you think they are fundamentally wrong about the age of earth, why do you trust them in so many other areas of your life?

Answer Question
 
my2.5boys

Asked by my2.5boys at 11:08 AM on Oct. 19, 2008 in Religion & Beliefs

Level 17 (4,394 Credits)
Answers (14)
  • No, I do not believe that.
    BlueFrogMama

    Answer by BlueFrogMama at 11:26 AM on Oct. 19, 2008

  • I do believe in the Young Earth Theory. As for the "Scientific data that points to the earth being much older", well, that depends solely on your frame of reference. We all have the same amount of evidence - the fossils, the geological layers, etc. When an evolutionist sees these things, they believe it is millions of years old (based on dating that is not 100% correct... in fact, it has been shown wrong many times...I refer to carbon dating, uranium dating, etc.). When a creationist sees the evidence, they don't have the whole "evolutionary" frame of mind, and we find many instances where evidence points to a young earth. I'd also like to remind you that both the Young Earth Theory AND the Evolution Theory are THEORIES... since no one was there when the earth first came into existence, both theories can be seen as viable.

    CONTINUED IN NEXT POST >>>>
    joshuasmommy327

    Answer by joshuasmommy327 at 12:33 PM on Oct. 19, 2008

  • As for the issues you bring up...
    1. DINOSAURS - They are not as old as what was once believed. Just recently a dinosaur bone was found in Montana that contained red blood cells. If dinosaurs are millions of years old, how could that be accounted for? There are many situations like this, where the evidence doesn't fit in the evolutionary, millions of years model.
    2. MOUNTAINS - Mountains actually show evidence of a very quick origin - layers of rock with fossils of a wide range of animals (which, according to the evolutionary model, should all be in different "periods", not in the same layer of rock), made by water rising and washing away quickly, creating mountains and canyons and such.

    CONTINUED >>>>
    joshuasmommy327

    Answer by joshuasmommy327 at 12:33 PM on Oct. 19, 2008

  • 3. GRAND CANYON - This was also created by fast water rising and washing away.... the same way as mountains.
    4. ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS - I don't understand why ancient civilizations would be a hindrance to the Young Earth Theory. They are historical civilizations - just not as old as the modern dating indicates.

    I WILL CONTINUE IN NEXT POST>>>>
    joshuasmommy327

    Answer by joshuasmommy327 at 12:33 PM on Oct. 19, 2008

  • Okay, as for your argument saying that I must believe the scientists are correct in the archeological dating because they also create modern medicinal equipment and technology... this is a complete logical disconnect. A scientist can be dead wrong on one issue and correct in others. Just because I (and other scientists, I'll add) may disagree with the explanation of the origin of the earth, this doesn't mean I cannot accept that an evolutionary scientist may be brilliant at creating medicinal products or coming up with advantageous technology.
    joshuasmommy327

    Answer by joshuasmommy327 at 12:41 PM on Oct. 19, 2008

  • In a word, No
    KristiS11384

    Answer by KristiS11384 at 12:44 PM on Oct. 19, 2008

  • joshuasmommy demonstrates a complete lack of ability to evalute scientific information. Unfortuntunately too many people have this problem and so we really should be concerned with scientific education, especially here in the US.

    Dating techiniques used by scientists are not bias and show consistantly that the earth is older than 10,000 years. The dating techiniques are tools. Creationists can misuse these tools to get bad results and then claim there's something wrong with the dating techinique. That's like trying to open a can with a hammer instead of a can opener and then claiming there's something wrong with the hammer.

    And notice that Creationists don't have a dating techinque that provides consistant results as to how to date objects. That's not science -- that's religion.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 12:59 PM on Oct. 19, 2008

  • No.

    And its not a scientific theory just because it has the word theory in it. To consider it so is to completely and utterly not understand the nature, philosophy, and purpose of science.
    thalassa

    Answer by thalassa at 1:02 PM on Oct. 19, 2008

  • No, there is overwhelming evidence to support the idea that the earth is older than 10,000 years. However, I do believe that God created everything and that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God!  Everything asserted as true in the Bible is asserted by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit doesn't lie.  However, the bible is not making scientific assertions and people will draw erroneous conclusions if they treat the text as if it was.


    Check out the article "Evolutionary CreationismThe purpose of the Bible is to teach us that God is the Creator, and not how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit created.

    eringobrough

    Answer by eringobrough at 1:05 PM on Oct. 19, 2008

  • I refuse to try to argue 10 different points at once. However, I will direct anyone reading this to some information that goes into the detail needed to explain the validity of creationism.

    "In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation" edited by John F. Ashton, PhD
    Articles by Ken Ham, Scientist, http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/postings.asp

    If you truly care about answers to your questions about the Young Earth Theory point of view, please read those resources instead of attacking me as "unscientific". I answered the question posted, so that at least one voice for the Young Earth Theory could be heard.
    joshuasmommy327

    Answer by joshuasmommy327 at 1:38 PM on Oct. 19, 2008

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.