A lot of the articles I post in the evidence and Bible prophecy part of the forum come from CMI (Creation Ministries International) and they are a great tool to use in strengthening or defending your knowledge on Creation science. I wanted to post the link to the section I think is very important: poor arguments used by those who defend the Creation account. Please read the ones they share in this list to make sure that what you believe to be evidence is not a myth popularized by culture.

Q&A

Some examples they write about in greater detail in that link:
“Women have one more rib than men.”
“Earth’s axis was vertical before the Flood.”
“Jesus cannot have inherited genetic material from Mary, otherwise He would have inherited original sin.”
“Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon.”

. . . and many more. I have heard about a couple of these and am glad I looked into them more.

Hello dannibear.

Great to see you active, I must say you do post some
very interesting information.

Read the information and noticed one problematic
paragraph.

There are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 so the Earth may
be 10,000 years old or even more.” This is not so. The language is clear that
they are strict chronologies, especially because they give the age of the father
at the birth of the next name in line. So the Earth is only about 6,000 years old.
See Biblical chronogenealogies for exegetical proof.

Jericho is considered to be one of the oldest cities in the world.

Traces of habitation from 9000 BC. Fortifications date to 6800 BC (or earlier),
making Jericho the earliest known walled city.

If Jericho is accepted by Biblical archeology at 9000 BC, then how
could the earth be 6000 years old?

Crunch, genealogies can not be used to date the earth!

What do you think dannibear?

Originally Posted by David777

Hello dannibear.

Great to see you active, I must say you do post some
very interesting information.

Read the information and noticed one problematic
paragraph.

There are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 so the Earth may
be 10,000 years old or even more.” This is not so. The language is clear that
they are strict chronologies, especially because they give the age of the father
at the birth of the next name in line. So the Earth is only about 6,000 years old.
See Biblical chronogenealogies for exegetical proof.

Jericho is considered to be one of the oldest cities in the world.

Traces of habitation from 9000 BC. Fortifications date to 6800 BC (or earlier),
making Jericho the earliest known walled city.

If Jericho is accepted by Biblical archeology at 9000 BC, then how
could the earth be 6000 years old?

Crunch, genealogies can not be used to date the earth!

What do you think dannibear?

That is problematic, I agree, and thank you for pointing that out. I sent them an email asking about it,
however, I doubt my email will be read for quite a long time. What age would you consider the age of the Earth to be David?

The age of the earth is unknown dannibear.

This of course depends on who you ask. Some scientists will say it's 4.6 billion years old and other will say based on the polar magnetic fields it is no older than 10,000 years old. There are two ages that pre-date pottery. Neolithic A and B which range from 10,000 to 6000 years BC.
There is much conjecture regarding the archeological records as there is about evolution. Dating methods seem to be all over the place and science may be able to date things we can confirm by other methods, but there is no way to confirm the actual year that mankind started because there are no outside records for corroboration, at least not any that science can use. As Christians, we believe the Bible and use it the best we can. From that record, the earth is about 6015 years old.

Quite the conundrum, but nothing I'm sure that God will not be able to explain.

There are many different positions on creationism, here are some.

“God made everything pretty much as it is now in six 24-hour days about 6000 years ago” - the so-called “Creationist” position.

“Day-Age Theory” - interprets the days of Genesis as geological ages.

“Gap Theory” - postulates that there is a gap between the initial creation (in Genesis1:1) and subsequent events (starting in Genesis 1:2). The gap is presumably billions of years long.

“Days of Revelation Theory” - postulates that the 6 days of Genesis 1 were the six days over which God revealed things to Moses.

“Theistic Evolution” and “Progressive Creation”.These are perhaps the most popular positions among scientists who are Christians. They say that things happen the way science says that they do, but that God is still in charge and able to intervene as he wills. There are many theories in these categories. Opinions differ as to when and how God intervenes.

“Intelligent Design” positions. Theistic evolution is pretty much the official position of the Roman Catholic church.

“Concordist Viewpoint” - Emphasizes areas in which the Bible and science agree and assigns different (Biblical or scientific) explanations to different things.

“Genesis is purely theological”.(i.e., it is not necessarily meant to relate what actually physically happened). This is a broad category covering a wide range of positions. I think this position takes a too low view of the Bible and I personally believe that the first few chapters of Genesis are vitally important theologically, but that there is more to them than that.

“Historico-Artistic Viewpoint” - emphasizes that we have to realize that the Genesis was addressed to people 3400 years ago in a form and in descriptive terms they would understand. Moses wouldn't have got very far if God had quoted from a modern introductory astronomy text to him!

Thank you for adding that, very informative post. I have my arguments for the gap theory and theistic evolution but that will be for some other thread. There were some on there I didn't even know about though. Like “Historico-Artistic Viewpoint”

Thanks for the post Dannibear, I enjoyed it.

This is a great thread and I enjoy all the comments in it. There are some intriguing arguments put forth by the "young earth" creationists, but one thing that troubles me about the young earth theory is the continental drift. I haven't seen a satisfactory answer to it, and contrary to creationist teaching, I don't think it occurred rapidly (not to mention unnoticed by those alive at the time).

I also don't get the emphasis by some that the earth, for some reason, needs to be the same age as Adam and Eve's arrival on it. After all, the earth was already there before they came on the scene, not newly created just for them. The bible doesn't say the earth was made on the first "day" - ie: 6000 years ago - it says the LIGHT was made on the first day.

So the question is, how long was the earth just sitting there in it's formless and void state before the creation in Genesis took place?