Young Earth Frustration

[_just me]

Went on vacation this past weekend and saw some ancient stuff. Love that kind of thing.

Anyway, it was (again) brought to my attention that my H is a young earther. Specifically the kind that believes that the Earth was made by God from other planets about 6000 years ago. He does not believe that radio carbon dating is reliable. He does believe tree ring science is. I need to find out about his thoughts on astronomy...

So, my question is this. If the Earth was created about 6000 years ago when was the Sun created?

If it was created afterward then there seems to be a few problems, like why can we see certain stars and why would the ancients see stars at all. Also, if it was created first then there would be "light" somewhere on the planet from the beginning. Of course, if the Sun borrows its light from Kolob I don't really know where to go with that.

Oh, and he laughed and didn't believe me when I said that flat earth was a belief that stemmed from the Bible. ?

Does anyone have any thoughts on the problems with a young earth and astronomy...or anything else?

[_Runtu]

My thoughts:

1. It seems to me that the only reason to believe in a young earth is a hyperliteral reading of scripture. The evidence is quite overwhelming as to the age of the earth. The age of the stars is just one good example of how nonsensical a young earth is in light of the evidence. Either the stars are very old, or God created them with long strings of existing light so that we could see them (that's special pleading, in case anyone wondered).

2. I'm not sure why a multibillion-year-old earth is threatening to believers in God. I've always believed in God, and yet I've always believed the earth was billions of years old (4.6 billion, by current estimates). What is it that makes some believers insist on a young earth?

[_Buffalo]

If someone doesn't wish to believe in scientific dating methods, it's difficult to dissuade them, but the science is sound.

You might mention that there are ice cores found older than 6000 years old, and they're dated in a similar manner to tree rings.

You might mention the Biblical concept of firmament, and how it necessitates a flat earth.

[_just me]

Ooh, I wondered about ice cores. Thanks for bringing that up.

He said he believes in DNA and it seems to me that that disproves that we all descended from Noah 4000ish years ago.

The main thing is I want to teach my children about the science behind what they learn in school and at the museum, etc. My teen was actually very shocked to hear my H say that he believed the Earth was only 6000 years old. Teen wanted to know what came first Adam or dinosours. I said dinos and I guess H believes that dinos lived on other planets???

[_Morley]

Ooh, I wondered about ice cores. Thanks for bringing that up.

.....

If your husband doesn't believe in carbon dating of fossils, he's not going to accept scientific dating methods for big chunks of frozen water.

[_Buffalo]

Ooh, I wondered about ice cores. Thanks for bringing that up.

.....

If your husband doesn't believe in carbon dating of fossils, he's not going to accept scientific dating methods for big chunks of frozen water.

Well, I believe they date them just by counting the annual layers, like a tree ring.

Speaking of trees, here's a living one that's 9000 years old:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -tree.html

Of course, it was carbon dated, so H will dismiss it.

[_stemelbow]

Hey there just me,

This is all such an unfortunate side-effect of religion. It really is. Dogmatic thoughts and feelings are driving a lack of exploration and thought. And I say that, knowing full well I ain't the smartest tool in the shed nor am i the most inquisitive and least dogmatic of folks. Truth is, religious dogma can stifle thought for some. Its a challenge us religionist have to face.

With that said, in my experience those who support a young earth aren't necessarily opposed to scientific learning. They just compartmentalize it. I know there are some pretty vocal young earthers who dispute science and treat it as unreliable, though. I'm jsut saying, there's plenty of hope. Some scientists are actually believers, afterall.

[_Hoops]

Isn't there something about radio carbon dating assuming an amount of "depreciation" that is not supported? I don't recall off hand and I don't have my Genesis study with me. At a hoops tourny, baby!!

Nonetheless, I'm not sure radio carbon dating is the game changer that all you believe it to be. Part of the point of Genesis is that God created all as a fully functioning system. Runtu may call that special pleading, which is fine, but a literal reading of Genesis allows it.

And, for what it's worth, there is no getting around a "hyperliteral" reading of Genesis. Either it's true and means what it says, or it isn't.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Speaking of trees, here's a living one that's 9000 years old:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -tree.html

Of course, it was carbon dated, so H will dismiss it.

Wow, it's a tree growing in a chunk from another planet used to build the earth with!

[_stemelbow]

And, for what it's worth, there is no getting around a "hyperliteral" reading of Genesis. Either it's true and means what it says, or it isn't.

As not so well-read on this as I should be, I'd say there are plenty of people who disagree with you. As for me, I think there is plenty of room around a literal reading of many parts of the Old Testament. Literal world wide flood my eyes balls.