Any proof for a young earth? I have always thought evolution as a mindless process because it has changed over so many years from ideology to mere unproven fact. People tend to say Evolution is far more acceptable process than creationism I believe the earth is at least from 50,000 years to at least 10,000 years old, but is there any contradictions to evolution and tell me so I can prove my theories with straightforward facts. I have always believed in faith before evolution. I want to prove people that there is evidence of a young earth over a old earth. Thank you for your replies. I know only so little beyond the combines of Science I am more of a religious historian than a man of science.

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

It's critical to understand ancient texts within the culture and time they were written.  Anything that we would understand as "scientific" (meaning adhering to the scientific process) that could be found in the Bible, or any old or ancient text, must be viewed from within its own confines.  These texts were the observations, philosophies, and chronicles of the people in that time, and represented their best and honest ideas on the subjects. Back then, these were as true as they could be. But we know better now. The world is round, old, rotates, revolves, and evolves. To say it doesn't because the ancient texts say something else is to insist that the Earth be the center of the Universe, because we're comfortable only with the concept of the Great Chain of Being.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

With all due respect to Frizzyperm, Wikipedia is not a valid source of research. The site itself makes the following disclaimer as to the validity of the information contained within its articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer

In fact, a former student of mine to prove how easy it is to insert inaccurate information into wikipedia articles, added her name to the list of distinguished alumni of her Alma mater and it was published.

As a writing instructor, I do not allow wikipedia to be used as a source for research papers because it is not academically valid.

I love a lively debate, however we as academics must seek to find evidence that is as accurate as possible to make the debate itself valid.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

The following two abstracts have interesting arguments for intelligent design. It is always good to research both sides of an issue and then make an informed decision on what you believe after analyzing the facts.

http://www.emjc3.com/evolution.htm

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

I'm not aware of any convincing scientific evidence for the "young earth" hypothesis.  Or, to state the point differently, I'm not aware of any evidence that is taken seriously by scientists who are themselves taken seriously by most of their peers. I've posted two links below that dispute claims for a young earth. I would genuinely, sincerely be interested in reading your responses to these links.  Best wishes to you.

http://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

 

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

Given that the world is constantly changing, one perspective that you could take is the the world is a new place every day. The same things do not happen as have before. While some could argue that on a global level things change so slowly that the world cannot be considered a new place with every new day, others could argue that each day is a new gift. While this answer does not prove to have an either religious or scientific basis, sometimes people simply need to trust in the abstract in order to find the truth they are searching for within themselves.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

I believe your problem is that you consider evolution and faith to be mutually exclusive, which they are not necessarily. Albert Einstein once famously commented faith without science is blind; science without faith is lame. Each explains a portion of the puzzle of existence which the other cannot. I would suggest you look for ways in which the two ideas complement rather than contradict each other. I am also a person of faith; yet I have nad no problem seeing the two as complementary to each other. Don't blind yourself to a single interpretation.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

My first suggestion to you is to move away from the purely faith-based paradigms and move onto the practice of the scientific method/process. This is why:

1. No researcher can possibly find an answer to a question without exploring EVERY available resource, whether it is fact or faith. Even policemen use psychics to investigate, yet, they do not rely on them entirely.

2. Faith has NO evidence to support itself. Research does.

3. Evidence of evolution can be found in plenty of living organisms. Take a look at FROGS. Do they evolve? Yes. Are they created magically? NO.

4. Scientific research is not an emotional journey. It is a responsible and continuous search for facts. Facts are not found in faith.

Try this and let us know if it works for you.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team

We’ll help your grades soar

Start your 48-hour free trial and unlock all the summaries, Q&A, and analyses you need to get better grades now.

  • 30,000+ book summaries
  • 20% study tools discount
  • Ad-free content
  • PDF downloads
  • 300,000+ answers
  • 5-star customer support
Start your 48-Hour Free Trial