Is there any part of Young Earth creationism not based on a thorough misunderstanding of all established fact?

At the last point in my life that I was a theist, around the age of twelve, I still laughed to myself at the concept that anyone could possibly come to the logical conclusion that the world is 6000 years old.

Even disregarding carbon dating and the fossil record, it is entirely possible to trace back human civilisation in the near east to 7000BCE - 5900 (Ubaid period) at a more cautious, conservative approach to determining the earliest established stage in the timeline.

By 4000BCE we have base-60 mathematics, astronomy, civil law and complex hydrology. There are plenty of artefacts clearly pre-dating these periods.

This is not research done in the name of combatting creationism; this is research done in the process of obtaining my degree in Early Civilisations of the Near East at Cambridge. Just in case you mind find it relevant to a literal interpretation - there is also no evidence of a global flood, and later - in Egypt - no conclusive evidence that slavery was practiced. I have personally studied the soil samples and read the original texts.

With extensive evidence of human civilisation far pre-dating 4000BC - why even argue about evolution? Why even engage in the rest of the discussion on scientific method? ... Any takers?


In response to one answer -

I took great pains to point out that this is not based on my worldview. It is the other way around, as it should be.

Your answer reminds me of a question I stumbled across a few days ago, asking why The Da Vinci Code was not an acceptable text to reference in an English Literature essay about Chaucer. The answer to both questions isn't dissimilar - it's only fiction. Your logic is circular - it happened because the Bible says so, and the Bible says so because it happened.

Radiometric dating is not necessary to establishing a chronology of Mesopotamian civilisation that necessarily predates 4000BCE, although it does support it. If you'd like to swap research styles - you take a degree in the history of the region, and I'll read Genesis again.

... ...

Alright, my research is over, and I'm still unconvinced. Let me know when you're finished with yours.

9 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    well lately it seems as if they hedge their bets slightly, saying 6-10,000 years. I guess what they mean is that the stone age, particularly the pleistocene, didn't happen. the scientific content of YEC is basically the best 17th century science brought back from the dead. YECs would probably be proud to know that they're only 400 years behind the times, it seems that they would prefer to be 2000 years behind.

  • FUNdie
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    It just goes to show how brainwashed you are by the public school system.

    First of all, two presuppositions in your question:

    1) "thorough misunderstanding"

    2) "established fact"

    I was an atheist and evolutionist for 20 years before becoming a Christian and young-Earth creationist. I knew all the arguments and all the so-called "facts" concerning evolution. I used to go online just like you and tell Christians and creationists how "stupid" they were for believing in a 6,000 year old Creation.

    The main difference between you and I is that I actually gave the other side a chance, decided to study both sides of the equation, listen to the scientific arguments, and in the end came to the conclusion that creation was right and evolution was false. Evolution makes HUGE assumptions about the data they find, then they take those assumptions and label them as "fact", when they are far from.

    <<this is research done in the process of obtaining my degree in Early Civilisations of the Near East at Cambridge.>>

    Ah, yes, of the many bastions of evolutionary brainwashing in the world....not biased at all....

    <<With extensive evidence of human civilisation far pre-dating 4000BC - why even argue about evolution>>

    Because your dates are wrong. You (scientists) use faulty dating methods to come up with those dates, and the dates that you do find are thrown out if they do not agree with the preconceived geologic column, and outdated, 200-year old piece of garbage made up by an atheist lawyer, not a scientist.

    Creationism also agrees with the presence of base-60 mathematics, astronomy, civil law and complex hydrology, such as in the Babylonian culture, which was the first major post-Flood civilization on the Earth. It seems your dates are off by about 2,000 years.

    <<there is also no evidence of a global flood,>>

    This is a blanket statement that evolutionists love to make, when the truth is they've never bothered to study it. There's LO'TS of evidence for a worldwide Flood - it's all around you, and easy to see. Someone would have to be blind not to see it. You do see all that water out in the ocean, don't you? That's what's left of the floodwater! The rest is locked up in glaciers, lakes and rivers. The Earth was mostly dry land before the Flood. If we were to reverse the effects of the Flood by melting all the glaciers, push down the mountain ranges and raise up the ocean basins to re-create the pre-flood world, the Earth would once again be covered in water 2 miles deep everywhere.

  • 4 years ago

    There is no cult named Young Earth Creationism that I know about. Scientology is a cult but how would you ban a cult since there is so much disagreement about which religion is a cult or not? The US still has religious freedom at least to some extent even though Obama's plan is to take Christianity out and let Islam do whatever they wish. That will destroy the US.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    how, may I ask, are archaeologists aware that the given artifacts predate 4000 BCE?

    Radiometric dating and fossils are interpreted based on presuppositions.

    Guess what, dates aren't recorded in ancient documents. We have to extrapolate them based on known knowledge and radiometric dating. Guess what, radiometric dating is fundamentally flawed by a paradigm and hopeful assumptions. Please prove me wrong.

    Plenty of evidence for the global flood:

    Oh, look! answers in genesis?! it must be crap. Please. . . what a great argument. Look at the data, decide for yourself, rather than ignoring it based on your worldview and what you're told.

    EDIT: Wow, you have yet to offer me any alternative method of finding dates, even after I asked. Also, I do not reason questions of origins based solely on biblical texts. I use a bible-based paradigm to interpret data concerning these worldview questions. I mostly rely on science. Radiometric dating is based on assumptions. Please give me another way you determine dates ca 4000 B.C. and prior, then I will take your claims seriously. The reason I argue this is because I am in my fourth year of Undergraduate Chemistry, am a tutor, student teacher, honor student, etc. All hail the mighty degree that you have, you seem quite impressed with yourself. This does not give you any expertise on dating methods, only events surrounding certain time periods, nothing more. I also have taken extensive courses in Israeli/Palestinian archaeology. I am currently involved in a research project at my university concerning origins so I know that you are spouting biased claims of historical knowledge.

    My main question that I want you to answer is, how, besides radiometric dating do you extrapolate specific dates prior to 4000 bce?

    Source(s): logic
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    they cant rationalize their beliefs with modern knowledge and seek to bring everybody else around them down as well.

    burney, i've seriously looked at whats in "answers in genesis" and found it to be hopelessly ignorant. the small amount of research they actually do tends to stop at their preconceived conclusions when there is much more that leads to a completely different conclusion. talk about looking at the data, deciding for yourself. put down your bible and look at the evidence with a blank slate.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yes. Some is based on partial misunderstanding while other parts are based on complete ignorance.

    There is no misunderstanding in complete ignorance because there was nothing ingested to misunderstand.

    Thank the holy fathers for burning thousands and thousands of books lest they remain to confuse us.

  • 1 decade ago

    Not so much a misunderstanding as a deliberate ignorance of the evidence

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes, the part that's based upon delusion, indoctrination, lies, and ignorance.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Exactly but they'll just say GODDIDIT.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.