Young earth creationism

A Debate over Evidence, or Worldviews? We all have a worldview – a way of thinking about the world we live in. We all have certain beliefs: ideas that we hold to be true. These beliefs affect how we see the world and how we interpret the things we experience. For example, most of us believe that things cannot cease to exist. So if we see a magician make someone disappear, we know that it is just a trick. Maybe a trap door exists that we don’t see. Maybe it is a trick using light and mirrors. In whatever case, the person did not really vanish. Notice that we do not draw this conclusion because of what we actually saw, but because it is the only explanation that is compatible with our worldview. Our beliefs have affected our interpretation of the evidence. A young child might draw and completely different conclusion. Maybe she doesn’t have enough experience to know people don’t have the power to make something vanish. Or maybe she understands that most people cannot do this, but she thinks that maybe magicians can. In any case, because she has a different worldview that we do, she draws a different conclusion: the magician can make people vanish! Our worldview prevents us from drawing that conclusion, even though we have witnessed the exact same event. We both have the same evidence, but we have a different interpretation. A worldview is really a kind of bias. It prevents us from being objective and “open-minded” about certain things. That’s not quite a bad thing. In a way, a worldview is like having “mental glasses.” Many people wear lenses to help them see the world better. Without these glasses the world appears blurry, but with these glasses, the world snaps into focus and things become clear. We all wear “mental glasses” – we all have a worldview. This is the heart of debates (i.e. creation versus evolution). Many people think the debate is about evidence, and although evidence is important, evidence is always interpreted through a person’s worldview. So the debate is really about worldviews, about which interpretation of the evidence is best. Think about it this way: creationists, evolutionists, etc., all have the same evidence. They have the same fossils and the same rocks. They study the same principles of genetics, chemistry, and physics. They observe the same universe. Why then do we draw different conclusions when it comes to matters of origins? Ultimately, it is because they have different worldviews, and so they interpret the same evidence differently. The very heart of the issue is if we start from the foundation of the Bible, or the foundation of naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that there is nothing outside of “nature” – the world we see, with its matter and energy, is all that exists, so it must have created itself through its own natural processes. There is no supernatural realm in this worldview. Therefore, they are operating within a naturalistic framework that rejects God. Some say we shouldn’t start from the Bible, that it's unscientific. But, if the Bible really is accurate history, wouldn’t it be unscientific to ignore this information? Is it logical to deny recorded history, and choose to rely instead on guess work? Since all scientific evidences must be interpreted in light of some worldview, it’s very reasonable to base mine on the infallible Word of the Creator. The Bible is a sure foundation for a worldview that is logical, moral, self-consistent, and consistent with the evidence. Thousands of books have been written on how the scientific evidence is consistent with what the Bible teaches. These resources have shown that biology, geology, paleontology, anthropology, and astronomy make sense when interpreted through the glasses of Scripture. You can find these resources at http://answersingenesis.org..., http://creation.com..., http://icr.org..., and many others. I will be touching up just a bit on astronomy. What is Young Earth Creationism? The belief that our Creator, the God of the Bible, created the universe and earth about 6,000 years ago over six 24 hour days. This is what the Bible teaches, no matter what Theistic Evolutionists say. Their view contradicts the Bible in too many ways. The Evidence Confirms a Young Universe (Astronomy) Scientific evidence is very consistent with the Bible. So why do secular scientists believe the evidence points to a really old universe? People who believe in the bang bang will interpret the evidence according to the big bang (sometimes without realizing it). So in other words, they assume that the big bang is true and they interpret the evidence to match their beliefs. We all interpret the evidence in our worldview; there is no getting around it. The Bible, though, is also used to interpret the evidence. Since the Bible is true history of the universe, you’ll see it makes more sense of the evidence than any other worldview does (i.e. big bang). Of course, big-bang supporters can always reinterpret the evidence by adding on extra assumptions (unprovable beliefs) so, these facts aren’t intended to “prove” anything. The Bible is right in all matters because it is the Word of God. However, you’ll see the evidence is consistent with a young universe. Recession of the Moon From the book Taking Back Astronomy: The Heavens declare creation by Dr. Jason Lisle. Since earth rotates faster than the moon orbits, the tidal bulges induced by the moon are always “ahead” of the moon. For this reason the tides actually “pull forward” on the moon, causing the moon to gain energy and spiral outward. The moon moves about an inch and a half farther away from the earth every year due to this. Thus, the moon would have been closer to earth in the past. Six thousand years ago, the moon would have been about 800 feet closer to the earth (the moon is a quarter of a million miles away). So this is not a problem over the biblical time scale of 6,000 years, but if the earth and moon were over 4,000,000,000 years old, then we have problems. The moon would have been so close that it would actually have been touching earth less than 1.5 billion years ago. This suggests the moon can’t possibly be as old as secular astronomers claim (JL 54-55). This chapter is also available online here -- http://www.answersingenesis.org... The Magnetic Field of the Earth The magnetic field surrounds the earth and is an important design feature. The universe has radiation which is harmful to living tissue. The magnetic field protects life by deflecting cosmic radiation. The magnetic field is caused by electric currents within its interior. These currents encounter electrical resistance, so they naturally decay over time. We therefore expect the magnetic field becomes weaker over time. Every 100 years, the magnetic field decays by 5 percent. Since the earth’s magnetic field gets weaker as time moves forward, it was considerably strong in the past. So strong in fact, 20,000 years ago life would be impossible.[1] 6,000 years ago the magnetic field would be a lot stronger, but perfect for life (JL 58-61). also - Magnetic Fields on other Planets The magnetic fields of other planets are aloes quite strong. If these were billions of years old their magnetic fields would be extremely weak by now. But, there not. A reasonable explanation for this is that these planets are only a few thousand years old, as the Bible teaches. Dr. Russ Humphreys, (Ph.D. physicist and biblical creationist) produced a model of planetary magnetic fields which can explain their present strengths in terms of biblical creation.[2] This is the model that successfully predicted the present magnetic field strengths of the planets and moons before they were measured by the Voyager spacecraft (JL 58-64).[3] Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence.