It’s not “creation vs evolution”

This argument isn't strong: if God created light in transit, it at least makes Him seem very deceptive, to give us the obvious impression that the light traveled through space over millions of years to reach our eyes. If the only other option is that God did this... you see my point.

There are a lot of Christian scientists that believe in young earth. And the reason no atheistic ones do is because they are starting with the presumption that there is no God, and if there is no God, then the earth has to be millions of years old because that's the only way they can come up with an idea of how every thing came about without a God.

"And the reason no atheistic ones do is because they are starting with the presumption that there is no God, and if there is no God, then the earth has to be millions of years old because that's the only way they can come up with an idea of how every thing came about without a God."

And a short answer to this, that's not true. Atheists believe this because that's what the evidence suggests, not because they need an escape to creation. Evidence for an old universe would be for example the one I already mentioned, that the stars are billions of lightyears away, yet we can still see their light. Or Hubble's law, which also points to a universe that's 13.8 billion years old. Scientists can also measure the approximate age of stars, and they have found many old stars. These stars are simpler and burn slowly, and by studying how they shine and change over time, they can work out how long they've been burning.

So an old universe is not the escape of atheists, but the conclusion of observing things in the natural universe.

"And the reason no atheistic ones do is because they are starting with the presumption that there is no God, and if there is no God, then the earth has to be millions of years old because that's the only way they can come up with an idea of how every thing came about without a God."

And a short answer to this, that's not true. Atheists believe this because that's what the evidence suggests, not because they need an escape to creation. Evidence for an old universe would be for example the one I already mentioned, that the stars are billions of lightyears away, yet we can still see their light. Or Hubble's law, which also points to a universe that's 13.8 billion years old. Scientists can also measure the approximate age of stars, and they have found many old stars. These stars are simpler and burn slowly, and by studying how they shine and change over time, they can work out how long they've been burning.

So an old universe is not the escape of atheists, but the conclusion of observing things in the natural universe.

For one i would say that most scientists who support it do not spend much time researching it, since in there mind it is already settled, and so therefore it would not be in there area of expertise. I would also say that this matter (at least in part) is a Biblical one, not just a scientific one. Since I believe that the bible is against it i will have to have Biblical proof to change my mind.

I asked ChatGPT to explain these things because I didn't know about some of them. The only thing I knew about was the magnetic field, which I also knew the explanation of. Also, just because it's written by AI doesn't make it less true; and the explanations for the refutations of these arguments are given, so if they're false, they could easily be disproven with simple research.

"1. “Spiral arms of the Milky Way are still distinct”
Claim: If the Milky Way were billions of years old, its spiral arms should have blurred or wound up due to differential rotation. Their clarity suggests a young galaxy.

Refutation: This is based on a misunderstanding of how spiral galaxies work. The spiral arms are not fixed structures made of the same stars that simply spin around like a pinwheel. Instead, they're areas of higher star density caused by what are known as density waves—waves of gravitational compression that move through the galactic disk, triggering star formation as they go. This means the arms are continually renewed, with new stars forming within them over time.

Modern galactic dynamics and computer simulations confirm that spiral arms can persist over billions of years due to these density wave effects.

2. “There’s not much dust on the Moon”
Claim: Early NASA estimates suggested there would be many feet of dust on the Moon due to micrometeorite impacts over billions of years. The Apollo missions found only a thin layer, implying a young Moon.

Refutation: This claim stems from pre-1960s guesses, not actual science. Before lunar missions, we didn’t have good data on the rate of space dust accumulation. Apollo landings showed that the actual accumulation rate is about 1 millimeter per thousand years, matching an age of billions of years. The few centimeters of dust found by astronauts is exactly what we would expect over 4.5 billion years when factoring in other processes like lunar regolith mixing and compaction.

This claim has been thoroughly debunked since the 1970s.

3. “Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast”
Claim: The Earth's magnetic field has been weakening and would have been impossibly strong a few thousand years ago if this decay were constant—implying a young Earth.

Refutation: This argument assumes a linear or exponential decay of the magnetic field with no reversals or fluctuations, which is not how the field behaves.

The Earth's magnetic field is generated by the motion of molten iron in the outer core—a geodynamo. It is well-known to fluctuate and even reverse polarity over geological time, which is recorded in rock layers (paleomagnetism). These reversals and changes show that the field doesn't simply decay steadily; it oscillates over time.

Furthermore, current magnetic field weakening is relatively minor (~10% over 150 years) and well within the range of historical variation, not evidence of young age."

If Genesis isn't to be interpreted literally, does that mean other parts of the Bible aren't, too? Or do we pick and choose which parts are literal depending on scientific developments? Could that imply that Jesus was not literally real?

And we know that the claim of Him being the Son of God was also literally understood, because people literally gave their life for this. In fairness, people have been giving their lives for false things for ages. How many people died for Communism? I think it's perfectly probable that there was a person named Jesus who preached and was crucified for it. That was common for the time. The question I was asking was more in the vein of : if the Bible is the word of God, and part of it is not literally true, 1. can other parts be assumed to be figurative too, and if so, how far can this be taken and 2. Why would God send word that was highly misleading. People have literally been executed over debating the scientific veracity of the Bible. Why would God not make it clear?

Also, could the Bible theoretically be entirely a metaphor - even God? Could he be a metaphor for goodness and morality, say? How can anyone know if the book was divinely inspired? The writers could say it, but that's like JK Rowling saying Harry Potter came and told her what to write. Is there any evidence that the Bible isn't a complex, fictional religious text to instruct people on morality, other than in the Bible?

Theological liberalism (which you'll often find nowadays in classical Protestant churches) often does view the death and resurrection of Christ, or even God's existence, as a metaphor to inspire to "make the world a better place" or something. Hopefully you understand how shallow this is, and this is why the denominations that have been overrun with these ideas are struggling with membership: they teach nothing more than what the culture does. Remember what Paul says: if Jesus did not rise, then we are of all people most to be pitied.