>> The evidence for an old earth is writ large in nature and if you spend
>> some time studying geology you will see that the evidence is overwhelming
>> and the idea of a 6000 year old earth appears quite ludicrous.
>
> Not nearly so ludicrous as the idea of a resurrection or an ascension or a
> hundred other things in scriptures.
I disagree. There is a ton of negative evidence against a young earth.
The resurrection was a unique miraculous event. Ah, but you might say the
creation was as well. The problem is that if it were, then God seems to
have planted a lot of evidence to cover His tracks and make it look old.
Why, if it were created recently, would God go through all the trouble to
make it look so old by fiddling with dozens of isotopic ratios (not just
here on earth, but also in meteorites and on the moon), stack strata
upon strata, place millions upon millions of fossil organisms in such strata
(start putting therapsids here, stop putting trilobites there, etc.), leave
evidence for Precambrian, Permian, Pleistocene ice ages, etc. etc. etc...?
In theory, as a Christian I have no problem with God intervening in
miraculous ways. I am however, uncomfortable with God doing so and then
making it look very convincingly as if He didn't. No offense, but it's
been my experience that most people I meet who believe in a young earth
have never studied geology or gone out to look at rocks. What I, as a
Christian geologist, would love to do is find a geologist who believes in
a young earth. The only one I know of is Steve Austin at the ICR and I've
never had the pleasure of speaking with him (I'd love to take him up on
some of his comments in "Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophy")!
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich Callsign KB9LCG s-schim@uiuc.edu Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 245 Natural History Building, Urbana, IL 61801 (217) 244-1246 http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/s-schim Deus noster refugium