| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | [[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|alt=Young earth creationism|thumb|310px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]] | | [[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|alt=Young earth creationism|thumb|310px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]] |
| − | '''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists.</ref> is a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref> | + | '''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists.</ref> is acceptance of [[creationism]] whereby the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | Young earth creationists hold that both creation and the [[Evolution|evolutionary position]] are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, young earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence. | + | Young earth creationists hold that both creation and the [[Evolution|evolutionary position]] are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, Young Earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] argue that the Young Universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence. |
| | | | |
| − | Scientists who advocate an old earth regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. But the predominantly [[atheistic science|atheistic scientists]] rely on a [[double standard]] that ignores numerous [[counterexamples to an Old Earth]], and the believers in an Old Earth also over-rely on flawed [[radiometric dating]]. | + | Scientists who advocate for an Old Earth consider, with biased arrogance, young earth creationism to be unscientific. But the predominantly [[atheistic science|atheistic scientists]] rely on a [[double standard]] that ignores numerous [[counterexamples to an Old Earth]], and believers in an Old Earth also over-rely on flawed [[radiometric dating]]. |
| | | | |
| | == Beliefs == | | == Beliefs == |
| Line 32: |
Line 32: |
| | * Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs; however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref> | | * Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs; however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref> |
| | *Many young earth creationists (including those at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[CreationWiki]]) assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref> | | *Many young earth creationists (including those at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[CreationWiki]]) assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref> |
| − | * The facts 1) that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood and 2) that geological evidence of a flood exists in almost every area of the earth, show that it is very likely, if not proven that the great flood did take place.<ref>[http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/]</ref> | + | * The facts 1) that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood and 2) that geological evidence of a flood exists in almost every area of the Earth, show that it is very likely, if not proven that the great flood did take place.<ref>[http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/]</ref> |
| | * The fact that history only spans a few thousand years evidences a young Earth. If the Earth were millions of years old, then so would civilization be. This is obviously not the case as recorded history only spans a few thousand years and our level of technology would be much more advanced. | | * The fact that history only spans a few thousand years evidences a young Earth. If the Earth were millions of years old, then so would civilization be. This is obviously not the case as recorded history only spans a few thousand years and our level of technology would be much more advanced. |
| | | | |
| Line 46: |
Line 46: |
| | | | |
| | == Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview == | | == Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview == |
| − | Young earth [[creation]] scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and [[universe]] being approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> They argue that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error,<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999</ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> and that [[geology]] further provides multiple lines of evidence that the earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] 28 July 2003.</ref> Rejecting the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions of secular geologists, they use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that depends more on [[catastrophism]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> and point out that catastrophism is being increasingly accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref> | + | Young Earth [[creation]] scientists advance a number of reasons for the Earth and [[universe]] being approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> They argue that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error,<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999</ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> and that [[geology]] further provides multiple lines of evidence that the Earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] 28 July 2003.</ref> Rejecting the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions of secular geologists, they use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that depends more on [[catastrophism]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> and point out that catastrophism is being increasingly accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref> |
| | | | |
| | == Astronomy == | | == Astronomy == |
| | [[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]] | | [[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]] |
| − | The young earth creationism view is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html Astronomical and Physical Sciences]; Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7].</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate: | + | The view of young earth creationism is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter-evidence.<ref>Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html Astronomical and Physical Sciences]; Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7].</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate: |
| | {{cquote|...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.<ref>Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43].</ref>}} | | {{cquote|...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.<ref>Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43].</ref>}} |
| | {{cquote|Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.<ref>Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 91, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43]).</ref>}} | | {{cquote|Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.<ref>Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 91, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43]).</ref>}} |
| Line 61: |
Line 61: |
| | Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref> | | Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings which challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>https://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know".<ref name="icr.org"/> | + | The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings that challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>https://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know".<ref name="icr.org"/> |
| | | | |
| | Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound. | | Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound. |
| Line 71: |
Line 71: |
| | [[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]] | | [[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]] |
| | Anti-creationists often claim that [[star]]light from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]]. | | Anti-creationists often claim that [[star]]light from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]]. |
| − | Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. Charles W. Misner.<ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref> | + | Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star-light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. Charles W. Misner.<ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref> |
| | | | |
| | Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained are unfounded. | | Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained are unfounded. |
| Line 78: |
Line 78: |
| | | | |
| | One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref> | | One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref> |
| − | Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref> | + | Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August 2001.</ref> |
| | Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield). | | Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield). |
| | They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref name="JS" /><ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref> | | They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref name="JS" /><ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref> |
| Line 90: |
Line 90: |
| | This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere. | | This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere. |
| | | | |
| − | However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that there is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000.<ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref> | + | However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the Earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that there is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000.<ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref> |
| | | | |
| | ==== John Hartnett's model ==== | | ==== John Hartnett's model ==== |
| | | | |
| | Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe. | | Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe. |
| − | He attributes the field, its removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention.<ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref> | + | He attributes the field, its removal, and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention.<ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref> |
| | Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]). | | Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]). |
| | | | |
| Line 115: |
Line 115: |
| | The second was during Noah's Flood. | | The second was during Noah's Flood. |
| | The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, which would form massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation during a short period of time. | | The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, which would form massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation during a short period of time. |
| − | Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood. This single land mass broke apart during the Flood when the subterranean waters bursted out of the subterranean chambers causing the earth to break apart (see also: [[Hydroplate Theory]]). According to many Young earth creationists, there were probably fewer oceans with much more land on the earth prior to the flood. It is believed that the worldwide water quantity increased after the flood. The sea trenches and ocean floors sunk further down after the flood waters subsided, because of the increased pressure of the water, thus causing the sea levels to rise.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Hydroplate_theory</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=390_ILj34oM&feature=channel_video_title</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hbj7FXQ-RY&feature=relmfu</ref> Young earth creationists also believe that many of the mountains, valleys, and lakes we see today were formed by the geological transformations caused by the flood. This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface. | + | Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood. This single land mass broke apart during the Flood when the subterranean waters bursted out of the subterranean chambers causing the earth to break apart (see also: [[Hydroplate Theory]]). According to many Young Earth creationists, there were probably fewer oceans with much more land on the Earth prior to the flood. It is believed that the worldwide water quantity increased after the flood. The sea trenches and ocean floors sunk further down after the flood waters subsided, because of the increased pressure of the water, thus causing the sea levels to rise.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Hydroplate_theory</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=390_ILj34oM&feature=channel_video_title</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hbj7FXQ-RY&feature=relmfu</ref> Young earth creationists also believe that many of the mountains, valleys, and lakes we see today were formed by the geological transformations caused by the flood. This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface. |
| | | | |
| | == Anthropology == | | == Anthropology == |
| | {{main|Biblical anthropology}} | | {{main|Biblical anthropology}} |
| | | | |
| − | YECs believe that all intact evidence of civilisation is evidence of post-flood civilisation, as the [[Global flood|Flood]] destroyed the pre-flood world. | + | YECs believe that all intact evidence of civilization is evidence of post-flood civilization, as the [[Global flood|Flood]] destroyed the pre-flood world. |
| | God confounded man's single language at the [[Tower of Babel]], forcing different family groups to separate and spread around the world. | | God confounded man's single language at the [[Tower of Babel]], forcing different family groups to separate and spread around the world. |
| | Most of the people groups listed in the 'Table of Nations' in {{Bible ref|Genesis|10}}, which contains a family tree of Noah's descendants, are identifiable from non-biblical records. | | Most of the people groups listed in the 'Table of Nations' in {{Bible ref|Genesis|10}}, which contains a family tree of Noah's descendants, are identifiable from non-biblical records. |
| Line 146: |
Line 146: |
| | | | |
| | ===Theological=== | | ===Theological=== |
| − | Some theologians oppose the proposition that God can be a legitimate or viable subject for scientific experimentation, and reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. They propose there are statements in the creation week itself which render the historical interpretation of Genesis incompatible with scientific evidence. | + | Some theologians oppose the proposition that God can be a legitimate or viable subject for scientific experimentation, and reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. They propose there are statements in the creation week itself that render the historical interpretation of Genesis incompatible with scientific evidence. |
| | | | |
| − | One example is that God created the Earth and heavens, and light, on Day 1, plant life on Day 3, and the sun and moon on Day 4. One must ask where the light in Day 1 came from, and why there were plants in Day 3 if the sun, which provides all light to the Earth, did not even exist until Day 4.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/framework-interpretation-critique-part-one A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 1 of 2) - Answers in Genesis<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> YECs such as Basil the Great and [[John Calvin]] answered this by suggesting that the light created by God on Day 1 was the light source. Answers in Genesis has refined this by suggesting that the Earth was already rotating with respect to this light.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal before the sun was created?<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> One can also make a case that God created the plants toward the evening of Day 3, the Sun was created on the morning of Day 4, therefore the plants only had to endure darkness for a period not much longer than a typical night. | + | One example is that God created the Earth and heavens, and light, on Day 1, plant life on Day 3, and the sun and moon on Day 4. One must ask where the light in Day 1 came from, and why there were plants in Day 3 if the sun, which provides all light to the Earth, did not even exist until Day 4.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/framework-interpretation-critique-part-one A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 1 of 2) - Answers in Genesis<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> YECs such as Basil the Great and [[John Calvin]] answered this by suggesting that the light created by God on Day 1 was the light source. Answers in Genesis has refined this by suggesting that the Earth was already rotating with respect to this light.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal before the sun was created?<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> One can also make a case that God created the plants toward the evening of Day 3, the Sun was created on the morning of Day 4, therefore the plants only had to endure the darkness for a period not much longer than a typical night. |
| | | | |
| | Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe did not exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have time to reach us. Most cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites. Creationists have also proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old? - Answers in Genesis<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> See creationist cosmologies and the [[starlight problem]] for more information. | | Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe did not exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have time to reach us. Most cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites. Creationists have also proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old? - Answers in Genesis<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> See creationist cosmologies and the [[starlight problem]] for more information. |
| Line 162: |
Line 162: |
| | * ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.'' | | * ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.'' |
| | : The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history. | | : The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history. |
| − | * ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphor.'' | + | * ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphors.'' |
| | : Creationists deny that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there are metaphors and other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more. | | : Creationists deny that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there are metaphors and other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more. |
| | * ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.'' | | * ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.'' |
| Line 169: |
Line 169: |
| | : Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''[[a priori]]'', not because of the evidence. | | : Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''[[a priori]]'', not because of the evidence. |
| | * ''The evidence in favor of evolution means the Earth must be much older than the 6-10 thousand years explained in [[creation science]].'' | | * ''The evidence in favor of evolution means the Earth must be much older than the 6-10 thousand years explained in [[creation science]].'' |
| − | : It is difficult to conceive of a mechanism by which any kind of biological "dating" mechanism could remain accurate in face of the supposedly changing levels of chemicals and solar radiation that evolutionary geologists insist upon. Even the most dedicated Darwin followers in the ranks of academia have been forced to admit that Carbon-14 dating can be wildly inaccurate for several reasons, such as naturally occurring radioactive elements in the Earth's crust.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html</ref> This is just one area of the theory of evolution which scientists have had to back away from with much embarassment. Perhaps if scientists could adopt a more open-minded tone towards those they disagree with, they could issue retractions without such fear of retribution. | + | : It is difficult to conceive of a mechanism by which any kind of biological "dating" mechanism could remain accurate in face of the supposedly changing levels of chemicals and solar radiation that evolutionary geologists insist upon. Even the most dedicated Darwin followers in the ranks of academia have been forced to admit that Carbon-14 dating can be wildly inaccurate for several reasons, such as naturally occurring radioactive elements in the Earth's crust.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html</ref> This is just one area of the theory of evolution that scientists have had to back away from with much embarrassment. Perhaps if scientists could adopt a more open-minded tone towards those they disagree with, they could issue retractions without such fear of retribution. |
| | * ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?'' | | * ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?'' |
| | : The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]. Some journals purport to accept material from all scientific perspectives, but engage in a process known as [[sham peer review]]. In normal peer review, papers are checked by two editors, independently, for methodological errors ONLY, not vetted for their content. That is the responsibility of the scientific public. During sham peer review, editors often collaborate to block publication of any literature that challenges established dogma, or their own pet theories. To make the problem worse, due to the incestuous nature of the mainstream journal editor pool, the same editor may serve on as many as a dozen different editorial boards, allowing them to spread their bias across a much larger area than an ethical editor would. Though this is widely acknowledged as a [[liberal deceit|deceitful]] practice, its scope is widely downplayed in the scientific community and is actually almost openly tolerated in some areas of science.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/peerreview/epidemic.php</ref> | | : The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]. Some journals purport to accept material from all scientific perspectives, but engage in a process known as [[sham peer review]]. In normal peer review, papers are checked by two editors, independently, for methodological errors ONLY, not vetted for their content. That is the responsibility of the scientific public. During sham peer review, editors often collaborate to block publication of any literature that challenges established dogma, or their own pet theories. To make the problem worse, due to the incestuous nature of the mainstream journal editor pool, the same editor may serve on as many as a dozen different editorial boards, allowing them to spread their bias across a much larger area than an ethical editor would. Though this is widely acknowledged as a [[liberal deceit|deceitful]] practice, its scope is widely downplayed in the scientific community and is actually almost openly tolerated in some areas of science.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/peerreview/epidemic.php</ref> |
| Line 192: |
Line 192: |
| | Many arguments for a recent creation have been put forward by creationary scientists, both scientific and theological arguments. | | Many arguments for a recent creation have been put forward by creationary scientists, both scientific and theological arguments. |
| | | | |
| − | Scientific arguments include [[radiometric dating]] results that disagree with secular ages, other dating methods that do not fit with secular ages, and phenomenon showing events that occurred quickly. | + | Scientific arguments include [[radiometric dating]] results that disagree with secular ages, other dating methods that do not fit with secular ages, and phenomena showing events that occurred quickly. |
| | | | |
| | There should be virtually no <sup>14</sup>C present in carbon supposedly older than 100,000 years, yet it has proved impossible to find any such carbon without <sup>14</sup>C. | | There should be virtually no <sup>14</sup>C present in carbon supposedly older than 100,000 years, yet it has proved impossible to find any such carbon without <sup>14</sup>C. |
| Line 304: |
Line 304: |
| | *[http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/youngearth.php Evidence for a Young Earth]- Dr Marc Surtees | | *[http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/youngearth.php Evidence for a Young Earth]- Dr Marc Surtees |
| | | | |
| − | Profiles of important young earth biblical creation scientists: | + | Profiles of important Young Earth biblical creation scientists: |
| | *[http://creationsciencehalloffame.org/ Creation Science Hall of Fame] | | *[http://creationsciencehalloffame.org/ Creation Science Hall of Fame] |
| | | | |