Young Earth Questions

[Student Mommie]

Hello!  I was reading about evidence for a young earth... and it kind of got me considering the idea that the earth could be young.  (And I'm not even Christian!!)

 

SO I was wondering-- why is it such a big deal?  Why do people care so much whether the earth is young or old?  Both mainstream science (anti YE) and YE people.  Why do YE people tend to weave it as the core theme in their curricula, is it really that significant?  (Now I get that creationism is important and somewhat central to a worldview, but why YE?)  Why do mainstream scientists feel so affronted by the idea of YE?

[Slache]

If you read the Bible as a historical document it lays a time frame out through the ages of the people mentioned in it. If you believe the Bible is entirely accurate and worded literally, which I do, then you would believe the earth is young. Teaching my children that the universe is millions of years old would be contrary to my faith.

 

 

ETA: I meant millions and changed it. Sorry, I was tired.

[Hannahs4]

That is a good question. I feel that real science has no place for "offense". Why should evidence for young earth automatically be labeled as religion? And there are plenty of old earth creationists. Evidence is just evidence. sometimes it takes a very long time to correctly interpret scientific evidence, but that should be all the more reason to not take offense at others conclusions. Good for you for being willing to look at another side of a debate!

[Free]

Hello!  I was reading about evidence for a young earth... and it kind of got me considering the idea that the earth could be young.  (And I'm not even Christian!!)

 

SO I was wondering-- why is it such a big deal?  Why do people care so much whether the earth is young or old?  Both mainstream science (anti YE) and YE people.  Why do YE people tend to weave it as the core theme in their curricula, is it really that significant?  (Now I get that creationism is important and somewhat central to a worldview, but why YE?)  Why do mainstream scientists feel so affronted by the idea of YE?

 

It seems that there are two ideas to be addressed in your question. One is about the understanding and clarity of the scientific ideas one holds. Is it important, for example to know that the earth is round and not flat, or that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. Is there a body of knowledge that if a person does not know or understand, then she can be considered woefully scientifically illiterate? Should that matter?

 

The other idea in your question seems to be whether science education matters at all. Why teach science? Why should we care about scientific thinking and scientific literacy? It is not like most (or even many) of us are going to be scientists or even be aware of the science behind everyday technology.

 

Most of us can live our lives just fine without knowing the science behind the age of the earth. We can also live our lives just fine without knowing anything about art, literature, history, music and maths as well, but somehow, we do not seem to ask the same questions with respect to these fields of study.

 

At least for me, science is an expression of our curiosity about the world around us. It is a human endeavor that has a deep, unquantifiable impact on our lives, our economies and our culture. That is why I care and that is why I suppose other people passionate about science care as well.

 

So why should we care about the age of the earth? It is a valid question that we must ask ourselves as home educators because it will inform our goals for our children's science education.

[MercyA]

If you read the Bible as a historical document it lays a time frame out through the ages of the people mentioned in it. If you believe the Bible is entirely accurate and worded literally, which I do, then you would believe the earth is young. Teaching my children that the universe is thousands of years old would be contrary to my faith.

 

Ouch, Slache!  ;)  I believe the Bible is historical, literal, and entirely accurate. I am also an old-earth creationist. 

 

I believe Biblical genealogies have likely been condensed and therefore should not be used for dating.  There is an article about that here.  

 

The earth and universe appear to be very old.  Either God created them with the appearance of age (possible) or they actually are old (more likely).

 

I don't believe the age of the earth is an issue over which Christians should divide. 

[Free]

Why should evidence for young earth automatically be labeled as religion? And there are plenty of old earth creationists. Evidence is just evidence.

 

Evidence is not labelled as religion. Evidence is data which we need to make sense of using tools of logic and reason. If scientists reject the young earth hypothesis, it is because the data does not fit the hypothesis.

 

[bolt.]

It's because a persons hermeneutic effects how they read their religious text.

 

If you have a concretely literal hermeneutic, the only available conclusion from the Christian Bible is that the Earth is indeed young. (Ie "entirely accurate and worded literally")

 

If you have subtle differences in your hermeneutic, you are well able to read some parts of the Bible as being BOTH accurate AND literary expressions, figures of speech, poetic language, etc... Then you are not forced to back the young earth conclusion (though you still may choose to do so).

 

People who consider the concrete literal approach to scripture a critical part of their faith generally consider it unwise (and possibly unfaithful) to play fast and loose with hermenutics. Therefore, to them "not being ye" is directly equivalent to "throwing the Bible out the window"... And they respond accordingly.

[Lavandula]

 Good for you for being willing to look at another side of a debate!

This kinda came off as acting like anti YE people haven't looked at the other side of the debate. They have, and believe it's wrong. I don't think most anti YE people haven't even thought about it. I've read their supposed evidence, and I don't agree with it at all.

 

I view their evidence like the evidence from people who believe we never landed on the moon. Each thing can be proved wrong, I don't need to think about it in my day to day life. I'm not really offended by it because I can easily disregard it, but I see how some people who spent their whole life working on the thing could be offended by someone else coming along and saying nothing happened. 

[Caroline]

If you read the Bible as a historical document it lays a time frame out through the ages of the people mentioned in it. If you believe the Bible is entirely accurate and worded literally, which I do, then you would believe the earth is young. Teaching my children that the universe is thousands of years old would be contrary to my faith.

Out of curiosity, how old do you think the earth is, if not at least thousands of years?

[Ipsey]

This does relate directly to your question though it is essentially about evolution.

 

It's a short, 9-minute video that explains why evolution and understanding it is important. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/               watch?v=V6zaRW5dL5w&feature=youtu.be

 

 

[ETA: I made a break in the address in hopes that the information would say, but that the video wouldn't appear because of the request for photos etc. to be removed.]

[Slache]

Ouch, Slache!  ;)  I believe the Bible is historical, literal, and entirely accurate. I am also an old-earth creationist. 

 

I believe Biblical genealogies have likely been condensed and therefore should not be used for dating.  There is an article about that here.  

 

The earth and universe appear to be very old.  Either God created them with the appearance of age (possible) or they actually are old (more likely).

 

I don't believe the age of the earth is an issue over which Christians should divide. 

This is what I meant by literally. People believe this or that the "days" in Genesis are not really days, but I take both literally. I tried to word that very carefully. Sorry.

 

Out of curiosity, how old do you think the earth is, if not at least thousands of years?

Between 6,000 and 10,000. I've never researched it myself because I don't really care. Not millions.

[Caroline]

This is what I meant by literally. People believe this or that the "days" in Genesis are not really days, but I take both literally. I tried to word that very carefully. Sorry.

 

Between 6,000 and 10,000. I've never researched it myself because I don't really care. Not millions.

Then why would teaching your kids that the earth is thousands of years old be contrary to your faith? You believe it is thousands of years old.

[bolt.]

This is what I meant by literally. People believe this or that the "days" in Genesis are not really days, but I take both literally. I tried to word that very carefully. Sorry.

Because I am taking you seriously, and I really have wanted an opportunity to ask this question -- out of curiosity and wanting to understand others -- I would consider it a favour if you could tell me (not as a defender or part if a debate or anything)...

 

Do people who think as you do, about the "literal" nature of the Bible actually believe that it contains *no* figurative language nor *any* figures of speech whatsoever?

 

Since I think probably not, (Jesus was not literally a door, nor was His flesh actually made out if bread, etc.) by what priciple(s) / methods do people who come from your perspective decide when it is apropreate to treat something as figurative (or not-figurative)?

[Slache]

Then why would teaching your kids that the earth is thousands of years old be contrary to your faith? You believe it is thousands of years old.

Wow, that was a major mistake on my part. I changed the original text. :leaving:

 

Because I am taking you seriously, and I really have wanted an opportunity to ask this question -- out of curiosity and wanting to understand others -- I would consider it a favour if you could tell me (not as a defender or part if a debate or anything)...

 

Do people who think as you do, about the "literal" nature of the Bible actually believe that it contains *no* figurative language nor *any* figures of speech whatsoever?

 

Since I think probably not, (Jesus was not literally a door, nor was His flesh actually made out if bread, etc.) by what priciple(s) / methods do people who come from your perspective decide when it is apropreate to treat something as figurative (or not-figurative)?

No. The Bible is filled with different types of writing. The histories are intended to read as factual accounts because they are histories and that's how histories are written. There's also poetry, letters (epistles), law, prophecy, and writings of wisdom.

[Caroline]

Wow, that was a major mistake on my part. I changed the original text. :leaving:

 

No. The Bible is filled with different types of writing. The histories are intended to read as factual accounts because they are histories and that's how histories are written. There's also poetry, letters (epistles), law, prophecy, and writings of wisdom.

I was just wondering if you had a different time frame. Thanks for clarifying.

[maize]

Wow, that was a major mistake on my part. I changed the original text. :leaving:

 

No. The Bible is filled with different types of writing. The histories are intended to read as factual accounts because they are histories and that's how histories are written. There's also poetry, letters (epistles), law, prophecy, and writings of wisdom.

Actually, an examination of historical records from the time of the Old Testament does not support the idea that histories written at that time were meant to be factual. Histories were blendings of fact and myth and political/religious ideology. I don't think there was really a concept of writing histories simply to recount facts.

 

I believe the Bible is true, but I also believe it is true to the culture within which it was written.

[MercyA]

This is what I meant by literally. People believe this or that the "days" in Genesis are not really days, but I take both literally. I tried to word that very carefully. Sorry.

 

Thanks, Slache.  I understand.  You know you don't offend me (hence the wink).   :)

 

The Hebrew word translated "day" (yowm) in Genesis 1 can also mean an age or a period of time.  I think that is probably the case in Genesis, but I don't know for sure.  It would seem that the days in Genesis couldn't be exactly the same 24-hour solar days we experience, because the sun wasn't created until day four.  

 

bolt makes a good point; all Christians believe parts of the Bible to be figurative.  I should have been more clear in my earlier post.  I believe every verse in the Bible is literally true.  Sometimes figurative or poetic language is used to communicate that truth.  

 

The Bible is filled with different types of writing. The histories are intended to read as factual accounts because they are histories and that's how histories are written. There's also poetry, letters (epistles), law, prophecy, and writings of wisdom.

 

:iagree:

[Lady Florida.]

 

SO I was wondering-- why is it such a big deal?  Why do people care so much whether the earth is young or old?  Both mainstream science (anti YE) and YE people.  Why do YE people tend to weave it as the core theme in their curricula, is it really that significant?  (Now I get that creationism is important and somewhat central to a worldview, but why YE?)  Why do mainstream scientists feel so affronted by the idea of YE?

 

 

For most of us in our everyday lives, it doesn't matter. However, it is extremely important in the big picture. We live in an increasingly competitive world. Countries with a generally scientifically literate populace will do better in global competition. If YE, which ignores scientific theory, becomes common in any particular country that country can and will most likely be unable to compete with countries that have a scientifically literate populace. Scientific breakthroughs rarely happen in places where people don't understand and/or accept science.

 

I cannot say why YE believers are so opposed to teaching old earth and evolution other than that it possibly conflicts with their religious beliefs. If they believe religion and YE or evolution can't coexist they must either give up their beliefs or reject the science. Again, I can't say this is the actual reason, as I'm not a YE person. It's just my guess.

 

Scientists aren't affronted or offended by YE as much as they are probably disheartened by it. Why? See my first paragraph.

[justasque]

Why do mainstream scientists feel so affronted by the idea of YE?

 

I do not think that mainstream scientists feel affronted by the idea of YE.  They just feel that the vast majority of the scientific evidence points towards an old earth, and that there is little evidence, if any, for a young earth.  

 

In addition, people who have never known someone who was YE, and who have been exposed only to the scientific community's reasoning/evidence/conclusions on the issue, can find it really jarring to come across YE believers or materials, because they may have been utterly unaware that YE is believed by many people and taught in many schools in the US today.

 

Obviously, also, scientists who are not Christian, or are of a Christian denomination that is not YE, do not have a religious-YE-belief lens through which to view the issue, and thus are less likely to consider the Biblical evidence to be relevant to the scientific question.

[maize]

For most of us in our everyday lives, it doesn't matter. However, it is extremely important in the big picture. We live in an increasingly competitive world. Countries with a generally scientifically literate populace will do better in global competition. If YE, which ignores scientific theory, becomes common in any particular country that country can and will most likely be unable to compete with countries that have a scientifically literate populace. Scientific breakthroughs rarely happen in places where people don't understand and/or accept science.

 

I actually don't think that YE beliefs would be a significant factor in limiting scientific and technological advancement. People tend to be pretty good at compartmentalizing knowledge, and placing religious belief over scientific theory and process in certain contexts does not equate to a total rejection of science. I could be a YE believer and also a technological innovator, a computer programming whiz, a groundbreaking surgeon, or a cutting edge biochemist. If every single person were to embrace YE beliefs, that would certainly limit scientific advancements in certain fields, but I think that scenario is unlikely.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I actually don't think that YE beliefs would be a significant factor in limiting scientific and technological advancement. People tend to be pretty good at compartmentalizing knowledge, and placing religious belief over scientific theory and process in certain contexts does not equate to a total rejection of science. I could be a YE believer and also a technological innovator, a computer programming whiz, a groundbreaking surgeon, or a cutting edge biochemist. If every single person were to embrace YE beliefs, that would certainly limit scientific advancements in certain fields, but I think that scenario is unlikely.

 

Teaching a religious belief as science hurts science education.  Accepting the incorrect claims/assertions/misrepresentations of the YE crowd as fact, or simply treating them as equivalent scientific theories, would make it more difficult to teach the scientific method correctly.  We are already in a world where people think a Google search or information from improperly vetted websites makes them equivalent in knowledge to those who have actually intensively studied and researched issues.  Allowing misinformation to be taught as fact in science curricula will only make the problem worse.

[Slache]

Something I should have mentioned. The evolution of a single celled organism to a human would take millions of years. The belief in evolution and the belief in an old earth are closely linked.  

[Saddlemomma]

For me, as a Christian, it doesn't matter how old the earth is.  I lean old earth just because I find the evidence for such more compelling, but I have nothing against someone who believes otherwise.  In fact, I used to be a YE Creationist myself. It's not a salvation issue, although some try to  make it seem so (thinking about Ken Ham here).  

 

Here is a very good article regarding why OE Creationists have a problem with using the word "yom" to absolutely mean a 24-hour literal day in Genesis and what OE Creationists actually believe (because some people seem confused about that): http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/old_earth_creationism.html   (Skip down to "Creation Days" to read about the problems with reducing "yom" to 24-hours in Genesis.)  No offense intended to my YE friends :laugh:

 

I don't think we can ever definitively know how old it is. We can hypothesize based upon inductive reasoning for the evidence we have, but people interpret that evidence according to their worldview.  We just can't help it.  For instance, a secular scientist is not likely going to approach or consider any type of supernatural possibility to explain evidence even if the evidence overwhelmingly points in that direction, unlike a non-secular scientist, simply because, to most secularists, the supernatural doesn't exist.  I'm not arguing whether or not this is bad or good, just that it's human nature to be biased towards your own worldview, even if you pontificate upon how unbiased you are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[livetoread]

There are many issues tied up in the whole science vs. YE creationism debate (which is actually a public opinion debate and not a debate within the scientific community).They generally come down to how we do science, how we communicate science to lay people, and how we decide the trustworthiness of our sources about science.

 

Religion can complicate all of those things, especially how we view the trustworthiness of our sources about science.

[Χά�ων]

There are many issues tied up in the whole science vs. YE creationism debate (which is actually a public opinion debate and not a debate within the scientific community).They generally come down to how we do science, how we communicate science to lay people, and how we decide the trustworthiness of our sources about science.

 

Religion can complicate all of those things, especially how we view the trustworthiness of our sources about science.

Yes.

[LucyStoner]

As far as I am concerned, this doesn't have the key ingredients for a debate. If people choose not to see reality, that's not my problem.

[Slache]

There are many issues tied up in the whole science vs. YE creationism debate (which is actually a public opinion debate and not a debate within the scientific community).They generally come down to how we do science, how we communicate science to lay people, and how we decide the trustworthiness of our sources about science.

 

Religion can complicate all of those things, especially how we view the trustworthiness of our sources about science.

 

This is incorrect. Many well educated scientists believe in YEC. Just because you might think they're ignorant does not make them any less a part of the scientific community.

[bolt.]

No. The Bible is filled with different types of writing. The histories are intended to read as factual accounts because they are histories and that's how histories are written. There's also poetry, letters (epistles), law, prophecy, and writings of wisdom.

I was hoping you could tell me exactly how you tell the difference: not only between the genres, but looking at figures of speech in all genres.

 

Also, I understand that you have identified histories as things that are written to be factual accounts... Is there a source and/or reasoning behind that idea that they were intended to be concretely factual? (As opposed to the idea of histories being intended as a genre that is more generalized in nature?)

[BrookValley.]

This is incorrect. Many well educated scientists believe in YEC. Just because you might think they're ignorant does not make them any less a part of the scientific community.

 

Key word there: believe. Belief =/= scientific evidence/fact.

[Slache]

I was hoping you could tell me exactly how you tell the difference: not only between the genres, but looking at figures of speech in all genres.

 

Also, I understand that you have identified histories as things that are written to be factual accounts... Is there a source and/or reasoning behind that idea that they were intended to be concretely factual? (As opposed to the idea of histories being intended as a genre that is more generalized in nature?)

 

Must you be so difficult?  ;)

 

When I was first saved 11ish years ago I believed in an old earth and evolution. It was at that time period that someone farther in his walk than I introduced me to YEC and I learned tons. I really don't remember much about the resources and stuff so I don't have a good answer.

 

After being questioned by so many Christians on this forum I will look more into it, though not right now. I'm sorry I don't have a better answer.

[Slache]

Key word there: believe. Belief =/= scientific evidence/fact.

 

There is a lot of evidence to support the YEC theory. The belief is based in scientific evidence and scripture. Scientists who believe in evolution or an old earth use evidence to support their theory as well. I don't see any relevance to your post.

[Free]

For instance, a secular scientist is not likely going to approach or consider any type of supernatural possibility to explain evidence even if the evidence overwhelmingly points in that direction, unlike a non-secular scientist, simply because, to most secularists, the supernatural doesn't exist. 

 

1. There are many secular scientists who are also religious, so your assertion that scientists do not believe in the existence of the supernatural is false.

 

2. A supernatural explanation is not proposed by scientists because by definition a supernatural event or cause cannot be studied. That is why it is called "super"natural.

 

3. Events and observations that do not currently have any naturalistic explanation cannot automatically be categorized as supernatural. The best scientists can do is to say we do not yet know, but with further study we may uncover some new naturalistic explanations. Stopping all inquiry and assigning a supernatural cause is not science. Rain, lightning, disease, volcanoes, earthquakes were all once attributed to supernatural causes and were later found to have perfectly good scientific explanations.

 

4. And lastly, how can evidence point to the supernatural? For example one can look at a cloud and say "Look that there is evidence of god" and yet we also have a naturalistic explanation for the formation of clouds. I can understand that ambiguity because it was a belief I once held. So, from your perspective what constitutes evidence for the supernatural?

[BrookValley.]

There is a lot of evidence to support the YEC theory. The belief is based in scientific evidence and scripture. Scientists who believe in evolution or an old earth use evidence to support their theory as well. I don't see any relevance to your post.

 

:blink:

[bolt.]

Must you be so difficult? ;)

 

When I was first saved 11ish years ago I believed in an old earth and evolution. It was at that time period that someone farther in his walk than I introduces me to YEC and I learned tons. I really don't remember much about the resources and stuff so I don't have a good answer.

 

After being questioned by so many Christians on this forum I will look more into it, though not right now. I'm sorry I don't have a better answer.

Thanks anyways. I will remain curious... It was worth asking.

[Χά�ων]

Thanks anyways. I will remain curious... It was worth asking.

You are so kind with your wording.

[Lady Florida.]

I If every single person were to embrace YE beliefs, that would certainly limit scientific advancements in certain fields, but I think that scenario is unlikely.

 

It wouldn't have to be every single person, just a significant number. There are a lot of scenarios I would have thought unlikely that unfortunately (IMO anyway) have become reality.

[Slache]

You are so kind with your wording.

 

Very true. I do so enjoy the civility and maturity of most of the people on this forum.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There is a lot of evidence to support the YEC theory. The belief is based in scientific evidence and scripture. Scientists who believe in evolution or an old earth use evidence to support their theory as well. I don't see any relevance to your post.

 

There is no scientific evidence supporting YEC.  There are interpretations and misrepresentations, but not actual scientific evidence.

 

[Free]

There is a lot of evidence to support the YEC theory. The belief is based in scientific evidence and scripture. Scientists who believe in evolution or an old earth use evidence to support their theory as well. I don't see any relevance to your post.

 

There is a difference between starting from the conclusion and trying to make the data fit the conclusion and starting from the data and then formulating a conclusion based on the data.

 

There are YEC "scientists" who have proclaimed that no matter what the data they will not change their conclusion. For them their interpretation of the Bible (which is not even shared by all Christians) is more important than science.

 

http://toddcwood.blogspot.in/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

http://creation.com/kurt-p-wise-geology-in-six-days

[Slache]

There is no scientific evidence supporting YEC.  There are interpretations and misrepresentations, but not actual scientific evidence.

 

 

Agreed. All evidence needs to be interpreted. Many young earthers and old earthers interpret the same evidence differently.

 

 

(I know you know that, but the OP might not.)

[Slache]

There is a difference between starting from the conclusion and trying to make the data fit the conclusion and starting from the data and then formulating a conclusion based on the data.

 

There are YEC "scientists" who have proclaimed that no matter what the data they will not change their conclusion. For them their interpretation of the Bible (which is not even shared by all Christians) is more important than science.

 

http://toddcwood.blogspot.in/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

http://creation.com/kurt-p-wise-geology-in-six-days

 

I've seen evolutionists do the same thing.

[Free]

I've seen evolutionists do the same thing.

 

See, I provided links, because I like to back my claims with data.

 

[zoobie]

Is this a real question from the OP? The wording of the question made me wonder if it's pot-stirring rather than information-gathering.

 

I've never known a non-Christian to be YE. It's a religious theory, not a scientific one.

[Χά�ων]

I've seen evolutionists do the same thing.

Can you provide links to support this? This is not something I have every encountered and I am interested in where this is happening.

[livetoread]

This is incorrect. Many well educated scientists believe in YEC. Just because you might think they're ignorant does not make them any less a part of the scientific community.

I don't think they are ignorant. There are probably all sorts of things in their field that they know way more about than I do.

 

But I think this illustrates my point. You say *many* well educated scientists believe in YEC, and you've gotten that perception from the sources you trust on the subject. I say less than 1% of scientists in fields directly pertaining to the topic (geology, paleontology, cosmology, etc.) think that either the earth is young or that life is young. Not to mention, of those there could be a sizable percentage who believe that on faith and acknowledge that currently scientific findings don't really support their view, but think future findings will eventually justify their faith.

 

It all depends on where you are getting your information. Edited to add: And whether that source is worthy of your trust.

[Slache]

See, I provided links, because I like to back my claims with data.

 

How kind of you.

 

Can you provide links to support this? This is not something I have every encountered and I am interested in where this is happening.

No. I'm done here today. I'm sure you would just disregard anything I say as pseudoscience anyway. I'm going to go play with my kids. Have an awesome day. :)

[TracyP]

Hello!  I was reading about evidence for a young earth... and it kind of got me considering the idea that the earth could be young.  (And I'm not even Christian!!)

 

SO I was wondering-- why is it such a big deal?  Why do people care so much whether the earth is young or old?  Both mainstream science (anti YE) and YE people.  Why do YE people tend to weave it as the core theme in their curricula, is it really that significant?  (Now I get that creationism is important and somewhat central to a worldview, but why YE?)  Why do mainstream scientists feel so affronted by the idea of YE?

 

I have a couple friends who are YE. They believe that if the Earth is old, then Genesis 1 is *wrong*, and therefore the whole Bible will have to be thrown out. I think this line of thinking is wrong on several levels, but this is not a question in their mind. It is all or nothing and they cling to their YE beliefs with all their might. I don't claim to understand it, but to them it is that significant. Their entire faith rides on it.

 

I grew up Christian but never even heard of YE until a few years ago. The people in my family do not think it is a big deal. Most of my other friends (YE or OE) do not think it is a big deal. I spent a lot of time studying YE when I first learned about it. Some of the evidence seemed compelling at first, but the more I studied, the less sense it made. I follow the science. There is no debate right now. The science supports an old earth.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Agreed. All evidence needs to be interpreted. Many young earthers and old earthers interpret the same evidence differently.

 

 

(I know you know that, but the OP might not.)

 

And the young earthers do so by by either ignoring or misunderstanding basic science.

 

And my apologies, I actually meant to type "misinterpretations."

 

[Slache]

I don't think they are ignorant. There are probably all sorts of things in their field that they know way more about than I do.

 

But I think this illustrates my point. You say *many* well educated scientists believe in YEC, and you've gotten that perception from the sources you trust on the subject. I say less than 1% of scientists in fields directly pertaining to the topic (geology, paleontology, cosmology, etc.) think that either the earth is young or that life is young. Not to mention, of those there could be a sizable percentage who believe that on faith and acknowledge that currently scientific findings don't really support their view, but think future findings will eventually justify their faith.

 

It all depends on where you are getting your information. Edited to add: And whether that source is worthy of your trust.

 

I strongly agree with you, though I think the 1% is way off. In this age of constantly evolving information, Wikipedia, and bloggers there is way too much misinformation out there, but I would argue that a lot of that misinformation is where you get that 1%. I could be wrong, but for now I'm outta here. Peace.

[Free]

No. I'm done here today. I'm sure you would just disregard anything I say as pseudoscience anyway.

 

If you are convinced that YE is science, then it should be possible to convince others as well, since science employs logical reasoning.