Some Questions For Young Earth Creationists

Somehow, Joel has managed to get under the skin of the people at Answers in Genesis (AiG).  Now, I am by no means a Young Earth Creationist, so I disagree with AiG’s interpretation of Genesis.  As such, here are some questions I would like answered by the kind folks at AiG.  Remember to support your answers biblically!
  1. If God created the earth young, but made it to look old, doesn’t thak make God a liar?
  2. If you hold to a literal interpretation of creation, do you also believe the world is flat?  Why or why not?
  3. Based on geological strata, why is there no evidence of a world-wide flood?
  4. How can there be a day before the creation of the sun and the moon?

I’m sure there’s more, but that’s what I’ve got at the moment.


18 thoughts on “Some Questions For Young Earth Creationists

  1. While I don’t represent AIG or hold to a literal six-day creation I have problems with your “straw-man” questions.
    1. Young earth creationists do not all agree that the earth looks young. In fact, many of their arguments are based upon evidence that demonstrates a young earth.
    2. A “flat” earth has nothing to do with a “literal interpretation of creation.” Where is the implication of a flat earth in Genesis 1-3, or anywhere else in the Bible.
    3. Ken Ham: “billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.” If you have ever investigated the AIG beliefs, even an inkling, you would have come across that statement. This demonstrates your extreme lack of understanding of AIG or any YEC beliefs. Maybe you should do a bit of study before attacking positions you know so little about.
    4. Day/Night–Time is not simply measured by the revolution of the earth on its axis. How could day and night/time/years exist before the creation of our sun even in the “billions of years”/big bang system of modern science? The universe cannot be billions of years old if there were no years before the creation of the star known as our sun. It is not the oldest star of our universe. Therefore, YEC and the Bible can legitimately speak of day/night and even twenty-four hours to describe time before those measuring instruments of time existed. All scientists do the same.

    • Thanks for commenting Jeff.

      1) I said nothing about the earth looking young. Read the question.
      2) If one holds to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, then one must hold to a literal interpretation of passages that state the earth is flat (ie, ends of the world, four corners of the earth, etc).
      3) I could care less what Ken Ham said. Points off for citing Ken Ham and not scripture like I asked. Besides, I’ve heard that lame argument before. There is no consistency across the strata. Therefore, that argument holds absolutely no weight. I went to school is Columbia, SC, which at one time used to be an ancient beach. But that doesn’t mean that Charleston was submerged during the ‘world-wide flood’.
      4) So there could be gaps of thousands of years in between each ‘day’? Thanks for proving my point for me.

      • Sorry, on question #1 I should have written “old” rather than young. All YEC do not believ that the earth looks old
        #2 is simply a straw man. Believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 does not require a literal interpretation of any other passage in scripture. Do you not hold to a literal interpretation of any passage in the Bible? How can you if you don’t take a literal position of Genesis 1-3?
        #3–But Ken Ham speaks for YEC and AIG. I am just presenting their argument. And on this point I agree. There are literally billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. I don’t buy the stock answer of the scientific community. Evolutionists and OEC seems to simply respond, “well, this was once a great inland sea. What kind of biblical evidence are you expecting on this issue? The geological evidence, either way, has only been discovered to any significant degree over the last three hundred years.
        #4–In my view and many YEC, “Yes.” They don’t all believe in a six thousand year old young earth.

        Now support the alternative, i.e. a thirteen billion year old universe biblically. If YEC proponents must do this to be considered legitimate biblical positions, certainly Old Earth believer ought to be required to do the same.

      • Seriously, Craig? You’re using Psalm 90.4 and 2 Pt 3.8 as biblical evidence for a thirteen billion year old universe?

      • Sorry to jump in here, but I couldn’t not say something. The reason the YEC position has to defend a 6000 year old (or 10,000 year old earth from the Bible is because that’s where they say the evidence is (not that they don’t think evidence exists elsewhere, but that is the main reason they think it is 6000 years old). However, the evolutionary or OEC position does not claim the Bible determines the age of the earth, therefore they do not have to back that claim up with the Bible. If there is any claim being made from the Bible about the age of the earth, it is that the Bible is silent on that matter (at least I think that’s the claim by most). That claim does need to be backed up Biblically because it is a claim about what the Bible is saying.

      • One problem I have with the whole argument is that it seems to only be presented with two options: either you choose the YEC position with a 6-10 thousand years period, or you choose a thirteen billion year position and take with it all the Darwinian baggage. I don’t buy either and find neither strictly presented in scripture (least of all the 13 bill, etc position)
        However, I believe the YEC have legitimate claims and evidence that cannot be explained by the Old Earth evolutionists. And, the OEE people have absolutely no scriptural evidence for their position (of course, the biblical writers didn’t conceive of an 13 billion years or Darwinian evolution, so how could they write about it?).
        The best they can do with scripture seems to be attempts to explain it away on the basis of ANE arguments, etc.

      • Michael Patton lists about six different views on creation. I’ve been trying to get on his blog for a while, but it looks like it’s down. Will update the minute I can grab the link to that post.

  2. 1. It’s not old, just mature.

    2. We must understand that non-literal figurative language at play in our literal interpretations.

    3. There is evidence, the strata is folded, not fractured. . ( More evidence here: )

    4. The light (already created) came from somewhere else, duh!

    Okay, so keep in mind I am NOT a YEC proponent. (Some of my answers are tongue-in-cheek.) I am an Evolutionary Creation proponent. I just thought I’d play a “sort-of” devil’s advocate with AiG’s material to provide for conversation.

    Deal with the answers as you like!

    • Of course! I am also “Theothinker.” Joel has trouble believing there are actually more than two people who disagree with him on issues.

      • I woke up this morning pretty well sure I was not Jeff (or Bob, or Sally, or Fred). But now I’m confused. I think I’m just me. But maybe something happened of which I am unaware.

        And I’m sure I disagree with Joel on issues (nobody agrees in everything), but I think we agree that the YEC position is not correct. So I’m not sure what the issues are about which we disagree.

        *mutters to self* … Walk away from the computer for a couple hours and your entire life changes…

        (Above comment meant in jest – tone never comes across well in type – no harm intended) 🙂

  3. Pingback: Thoughts on Creationism « A limey's ramblings

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s