In Part II, I laid out an overview of Young Earth Creationism (YEC), and in Part III, I began addressing some of the controversy with YEC. I will continue addressing the controversy and potential problems with YEC in this post.

Radiocarbon Dating

Radiocarbon dating is used for dating the age of fossils or formerly living matter (organic matter) up to 60,000 years old. (1) This method of dating poses an apparent problem for YEC, because dates obtained from Carbon 14 dating are frequently greater than the 6,000 year-old age as purported to a literal biblical interpretation. The basic assumptions of Carbon 14 dating are challenged by YEC proponents. Namely, that the initial amount of Carbon 14 in organic materials can be known, changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, and the amount of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere was much higher before the global flood. (2)

Star Light and Time

If you look up into the sky at night you will see stars. The speed of light in a vacuum is a known rate (186,282 miles/second). So, the distance that light travels in a year is known (5,878,625,373,183 miles), and the distance to stars and distant galaxies has been estimated. The distance to the most distant objects in the universe is estimated in billions of light years. So, the assumption is that the light from these objects originated billions of years ago. YEC proponents do not question the distance to these stars and galaxies.

One argument is,

Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. (3)

However, it is also noted that,

It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this. God made our eyes to accurately probe the real universe; so we can trust that the events that we see in space really happened. For this reason, most creation scientists believe that light created in-transit is not the best way to respond to the distant starlight argument.

Again, YEC proponents challenge uniformitarian views. Although some creation scientists challenge the speed of light, others approach the challenge with respect to time.

Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not “feel” any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth. This idea is certainly intriguing. And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea. (3)

And then there is the time zone argument,

Since God created the stars on Day 4, their light would leave the star on Day 4 and reach earth on Day 4 cosmic local time. Light from all galaxies would reach earth on Day 4 if we measure it according to cosmic local time. Someone might object that the light itself would experience billions of years (as the passenger on the plane experiences the two hour trip). However, according to Einstein’s relativity, light does not experience the passage of time, so the trip would be instantaneous. Now, this idea may or may not be the reason that distant starlight is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale, but so far no one has been able to prove that the Bible does not use cosmic local time. So, it is an intriguing possibility. (3)

Challenging the assumptions of naturalism is also an argument. It states that although God sustains the universe in a certain way presently, this tells us nothing about how He actually created things in the beginning.

It is perfectly acceptable for us to ask, “Did God use natural processes to get the starlight to earth in the biblical timescale? And if so, what is the mechanism?” But if no natural mechanism is apparent, this cannot be used as evidence against supernatural creation. So, the unbeliever is engaged in a subtle form of circular reasoning when he uses the assumption of naturalism to argue that distant starlight disproves the biblical timescale. (3)

Cosmology is also examined, and it is noted that there is a star light and time problem with current cosmological theories as well. This perspective forces a detente between the creationist view and the naturalist view by asserting that both perspectives are faced with the same basic problem.

… since the big bang supporters’ own assumptions, including uniformitarianism and naturalism, there has not been enough time in 14 billion years to get light from A to B; they are too far apart. This is a light travel-time problem—and a very serious one. (3)

The most distantly observable matter in the universe is said to be 46 billion light years away from the Earth. (4) If the universe is approximately 14 billion years, old, then it would be impossible for us to see things that far away. Naturalists invoke unverifiable theories such as “dark energy” to explain this problem. So the notion is that both the creationist viewpoint and naturalist viewpoint both have problems with star light and time. The notion is where you place your faith, in those things that are said to be ‘revealed by God,’ or in the theories of humans.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon

(2) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

(3) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size_of_the_universe

A potential cosmological resolution to the star light and time problem is presented in the book, Starlight and Time.

In Part II, I gave a basic summary of the view of Young Earth Creationism. In this section, I’ll discuss some of the controversies.

Catastrophe versus Uniformitarianism

That naturalist viewpoint is that the rate at which geological and other natural processes occur today, is the rate at which these things have always occurred (geological changes, formation of strata layers, formation of fossils, and so forth). The YEC viewpoint is that many of these things can be explained by global catastrophic processes, and specifically the Great Flood, as described in the Bible.

Plate Tectonics

After naturalistic scientists finally came to a point of resolution about plate tectonics, it became possible to measure the speed of continental drift (.5 to 6 inches per year). (1) And by the uniformitarian view of geology, the separation of the continents from the original single land mass was estimated to have taken 1 billion years. (2) Evidence for the YEC perspective is presented at Answers in Genesis, and computer models related to the catastrophic hypothesis have been developed. (1)

According to AIG,

… a 3-D supercomputer model of processes in the earth’s mantle has demonstrated that tectonic plate movements can indeed be rapid and catastrophic when a realistic deformation model for mantle rocks is included.¹⁰ And, even though it was developed by a creation scientist, this supercomputer 3-D plate tectonics modeling is acknowledged as the world’s best.¹¹

Radiometric Dating

The uniformitarian view receives support from examining evidence pertaining to the rate of decay of radioactive elements. Radiometric dating is used in the dating of the formation of igneous rocks.

Which are defined as,

formed by solidification of cooled magma (molten rock). (3)

So, this type of dating is confined to only certain types of rocks.

Types of igneous rocks include granite and basalt (lava). Sedimentary rocks, which contain most of the world’s fossils, are not commonly used in radioisotope dating. These types of rocks are comprised of particles from many preexisting rocks which were transported (mostly by water) and redeposited somewhere else. Types of sedimentary rocks include sandstone, shale, and limestone. (4)

Different elements are seen to have different “half lives.” Radioactive elements decay into other elements that is extremely consistent in current observations of radioactive decay. YEC challenges the assumptions of the rate of radioactive decay and provides support for their position that the Earth is young (thousands of years) instead of old (billions of years). (5) Additional evidence is provided in book and DVD form. (6) (7)

The RATE group has been criticized by naturalists. ( 8 )

This post is getting rather long, so I will continue in Part IV.

(1). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/catastrophic-plate-tectonics

(2). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

(3). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igneous

(4). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

(5). http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp

(6). Thousands not Billions

(7). Radioisotopes & the Age of the Earth (DVD)

(8). http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm

]]> http://intelldesign.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/on-christian-views-of-creationism%e2%80%93part-iii-continued-young-earth-creationism/feed/ 8 The Country Shrink