The Seven-Day Universe - Part 3: Physical Evidence for a Young Earth

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day."
- Exodus 20:11 -

Hoping to encourage further thought and discussion, I've been publishing some counterpoints to Steemian @gavvet's presentation here:

"Were the seven days of creation in Genesis seven twenty four hour periods?"

I encourage you to read his whole series of articles on the subject.

This is the third in my series suggesting that you consider other possible alternative interpretations of the facts. Here are links to previous articles:

The Seven-Day Universe - A Response to @gavvet
The Seven-Day Universe - Part 2

In my last article, we looked at an alternative cosmological theory based on evidence that strongly indicates that the Earth actually occupies a very special place in the universe.

In this article, we'll consider data that offers possible clues to the age of the Earth itself.

There is significant physical evidence for a "young earth."

Evidence that, at the very least, calls into question some of the vast ages postulated by the prevailing scientific views.

I think that some responses to "young earth" data, have been purely reactionary.

In the 17th century, Archbishop James Ussher devised a detailed biblical chronology. The good bishop developed a calendar based on a very literal adding up of the geneological records in the bible.

Ussher pegged the creation at approximately six thousand years ago. Those who believe the earth to be far older have often poked fun at this number, using it as sort of a straw-man punching bag.

I consider that a bit of a red herring.

Simply poking fun at Ussher is not a legitimate critique of a young earth.

Created in six days?
Photo courtesy of Clker-Free-Vector-Images and http://pixabay.com

Here's a bulletin:

Much, if not most of what we know is probably wrong. As adults, it's past time for us to open our eyes, ask our own questions, and evaluate the "truth" of what we've come to accept by osmosis.

We need to recognize and acknowledge that much of what we know has been spoon-fed to us by groups with agendas, whether religious, political, or scientific.

When it comes to matters of great significance, we need to think and evaluate and research the fundamentals for ourselves.

Created in mere days?
Photo courtesy of NASA

I've learned things just by responding to @gavvet.

Even as I've gathered material for these articles, I've discovered that some of the evidences for a young earth that I remember reading about years ago now have credible counter-arguments.

As a result, this article has turned out to be considerably more difficult to write than I expected. Evidences of a young earth that I once thought valid may now be in question once more.

That's great!

My purpose has been less to debate @gavvet than to say "Hey, @gavvet has some great points. Please consider them, but don't simply take them on faith. There may be far more to this topic than meets the eye."

It's natural for us as humans to defend our beliefs.

If we make an honest effort to observe our own thinking and motivation, we will have a better chance of coming to impartial conclusions.

But we can't escape our predispostions. Let them guide you; just don't let them rule you. Keep in mind that both religious and scientific organizations are fallible. Don't let yourself become trapped in an old, false theory.

Created in six days?
Photo courtesy of Arek Socha and http://pixabay.com

Probably the most comprehensive compilation I've found of evidences advanced for a young earth can be found here:

Young earth evidence

This is also a fairly good compilation:

Young Earth Creationism

However, many of these evidences seem to either have plausible counter arguments, or counter arguments that are so involved that I have been unable to fully comprehend them while preparing this article.

Therefore, I'll only write about one "young earth" evidence.

It should only take one really disturbing "exception to the rule" to at least open your mind to the possibility that the Earth may be younger than you think. I find the particular, relatively new, and very widespread series of discoveries I'm about to discuss, to be one of those "paradigm busting" surprises for modern science.

What might that be?

"Terrify softly tissue?"
Photo courtesy of Katie Rose and http://pixabay.com

Dinosaur soft tissue preservation.

In 2005, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer shocked the world when she reported discovering soft tissue preserved in dinosaur bones.

How could there still be proteins, blood cells, and other "soft" organic matter present in fossils purportedly many millions of years old?

Schweitzer, a confessing Christian, speaks in this Smithsonian article of being confounded by other less than charitable Christians questioning how she can continue to believe in an ancient earth.

I find this personally distressing, as I see no reason to be uncharitable when discussing these matters.

Nevertheless, multiple and repeated discoveries like Schweitzer's appear to me to be convincing evidence that dinosaurs are not as ancient as commonly believed.

Those predisposed to believe "thunder lizards" are truly ancient have devised explanations for how soft tissue might have survived for so long. Here, for examaple, are a couple of such articles:

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

and

“Soft Tissue” in Dinosaur Bones: What Does the Evidence Really Say?

There are of course counter-arguments, such as this:

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

Discoveries of preserved soft tissue continue. I suspect that the debate over how to interpret them will continue as well.

Earth from space.
Photo courtesy of Free-Photos and http://pixabay.com

For now, that's a wrap.

I will openly admit here that I continue to be partial to the "seven literal day" view of creation. I will also admit that I am now challenged to do some more contemporary reading and study of the dialog on both sides, as I've been away from the debate for too long.

I also find it exciting to note that much data has been and continues to be collected since I last looked into this topic. We truly live in exciting times.

I appreciate @gavvet for having launched me in the direction of revisiting this topic, and I'll leave you with the following appeal.

When it comes to allowing "science" to modify "faith," use good judgement. Don't instantly "throw out the baby with the bathwater."

Be at least open to alternative theories that may initially sound "outside the box."

Who knows what you might learn?

---

~FIN~

LOOK! Check out our amazing product:
>>CLICK HERE!<<

---

Thanks for your time and attention.
You are why I'm here on Steemit!
I have very eclectic interests and hope, over time, to write about them all.

---

⬇️To Check Out @creatr's World⬇️CLICK Each Image Below⬇️